From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Wed Mar 05 19:54:52 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_1); 6 Mar 2003 03:54:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 19278 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2003 03:54:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Mar 2003 03:54:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Mar 2003 03:54:52 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18qmT5-0006WY-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 19:54:51 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18qmS8-0006WE-00; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 19:53:52 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 05 Mar 2003 19:53:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from lmsmtp04.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.114]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18qmS1-0006W4-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 19:53:45 -0800 Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-53-121.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.53.121]) by lmsmtp04.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5774B483E4 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:53:13 +0100 (MET) To: Subject: [lojban] Re: The Any thread Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 03:52:52 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <20030305175258.G88738-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-archive-position: 4389 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin xod: > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, John Cowan wrote: > > > Invent Yourself scripsit: > > > > > > The existence of one or more doctors that fail the need test ("need not" > > > > is not a negation of "need" in English, leading to still more confusion) > > > > *does* falsify "mi nitcu lo mikce", which is good evidence that it does > > > > not translate "I need a doctor, any doctor", but rather means "There > > > > is/are doctor(s) that I need." > > > > > > Will you explain, though, under what definition of "not specific" or "not > > > in-mind" do you use to restrict lo mikce beyond any doctor? > > > > There is none. But I can need a doctor even if there are no doctors, > > whereas "mi nitcu lo mikce" is false if there are no doctors > > Let's assume there are doctors. Now does it work? Half of the specialness of the opaque reading is that it doesn't claim existence. That half is irrelevant in a context where there are doctors. The other (and more logically problematic) half of the specialness was pointed out by xorxes earlier in the recent discussion. If there are two doctors, Drs Foo and Bar, then "mi nitcu lo mikce" entails that either "mi nitcu Dr Foo" or "mi nitcu Dr Bar" is true, yet neither of those is equivalent to the opaque reading of "I need a doctor". --And.