From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Mar 03 18:16:21 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 4 Mar 2003 02:16:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 11455 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 02:16:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Mar 2003 02:16:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.91) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 02:16:20 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 18:16:20 -0800 Received: from 200.69.2.52 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 02:16:20 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: The Any thread Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 02:16:20 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Mar 2003 02:16:20.0917 (UTC) FILETIME=[0BFC9E50:01C2E1F4] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.2.52] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la kreig cusku di'e > >>i la meris nitcu lo mikce > >>i la meris nitcu la mikc.bar. noi mikce > >>i la meris na'e nitcu ro drata mikce > >> > >>then I will see a conflict. > > >Right. But there is no conflict in standard Lojban. In Standard > >Lojban the first sentence just claims that there is at least one > >doctor that she needs, and it is perfectly compatible with her > >not needing any other doctor. > >No, the first sentence claims that she needs a doctor. I have not put it >like this to avoid (misplaced) claims of the M-word, but I frankly see {mi >nitcu lo mikce} as equivalent to English {I need a doctor}. I think it should be equivalent. I think {lo} should be used for the generic (in fact something very similar to Loglan's original {lo}), but in Lojban so far {lo broda} has been defined as {da poi broda}, an ordinary quantification with transparent scope. >Care to explain how to express the difference between the following, in >concise Lojban: > >1. It would be untrue to assert that for every x that is a doctor, meris >needs x. la meris na nitcu ro mikce >2. It would be true to assert that for every x that is a doctor, meris >doesn't need x. la meris nitcu ro mikce naku > >I think I understand what you want from {lo}. I would want it > >defined that way too. But it is not that in traditional Lojban. > >That's where I have to disagree with you. I think that *is* the meaning of >lo. Then we disagree on what it is but agree on what it should be. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail