From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Wed Mar 05 20:03:04 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 04:03:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 94683 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2003 04:03:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Mar 2003 04:03:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Mar 2003 04:03:04 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18qmb2-0006fM-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 20:03:04 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18qmZi-0006YU-00; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 20:01:42 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 05 Mar 2003 20:01:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from lmsmtp05.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.115]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18qmZK-0006YL-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 20:01:18 -0800 Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-53-121.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.53.121]) by lmsmtp05.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 354AA1FFAE for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 05:00:44 +0100 (MET) To: Subject: [lojban] Re: The Any thread Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:00:23 -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: <3E669565.4030902@bilkent.edu.tr> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-archive-position: 4390 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 Robin.tr ~ solri: > John Cowan wrote: > > Thinking about doctors, IMHO, just confuses the issue. Take "I need a > > box with dimensions 2m by 2m by 2cm." You can need such a thing > > perfectly well even if there is no such box anywhere. This is why > > needing involves an implied proposition: you cannot, e.g. see such a box > > unless there is such a box (neglecting visual illusions, where you see > > the *appearance* of a box but not the box itself) > > > That's exactly the point I was trying to make about the semantics of > "nitcu" and "pendo" being different. You can nitcu something even if > that something does not exist, or perhaps could never exist (e.g. I want > to do something which requires the existence of the proverbial golden > mountain). You cannot be a pendo of something unless there is something > to be a pendo of (although it doesn't have to exist in a physical sense > - you can still say "I've got a friend in Jesus" even if Jesus never > lived, or lived but was not resurrected - the point is that you have > some specific entity in mind who is your friend, which is qualitatively > different from needing a box which may or may not exist). This has > nothing to do with the semantics of "lo" You can *need* something even if that something does not exist. But, if Lojban is to be internally consistent, then you can't *nitcu* something that does not exist. IOW, consistency requires that Lojban be blind to the difference between nitcu and pendo qua predicates. The logical difference between "need X" and "be friend to X" must be signalled by a means such as the choice of gadri used for X -- which is why Nick was striving to come up with a gadri scheme that could accommodate this (inter alia). --And.