Subject: Re: [lojban] Any

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:16:24 +0000

la greg cusku di'e

>I have two possible solutions to the problem of saying:
>
>"I need a doctor" (ie any doctor will do)
>
>(1){mi nitcu lu'a lo'i mikce}

The way I understand {lu'a}, {lu'a lo'i mikce} is equivalent
to {lo mikce}. Both are "at least one member of the set of
all doctors". But I won't claim that {lu'a} has such a well
established definition as {lo}. There are different
understandings of how LAhEs work and they've never been fully
clarified.

>or
>
>(2){lo se nitcu be mi cu mikce}
[...]
>(2) arises from another concern. I'm wondering whether it would work
>differently if da is scoped as being a {se nitcu}. It only works if the
>following are not equivalent:
>
>mi nitcu da poi mikce
>da poi se nitcu be mi cu mikce
>da se nitcu be mi gi'e mikce

Those are all equivalent. In logical terms, they all
reduce to Ex:N(mi,x)&M(x)
where N(,) is nitcu and M() is mikce.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail