From jorge@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx Fri Apr 16 16:19:24 1999 X-Digest-Num: 117 Message-ID: <44114.117.650.959273824@eGroups.com> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 20:19:24 -0300 From: "=?US-ASCII?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" I was acting on the assumption that {mi nitcu lo tanxe} >was the equivalent of {mi nitcu lenu mi ponse lo tanxe}. They are different in one important respect with regards to this discussion: the scope of the quantifier. The first one means "there is some box x, such that I need x", the second one means "I need that there be some box x such that I have x". In Lojban terms, {lo tanxe} is introduced in the first case in the prenex of the bridi whose selbri is nitcu, and in the second case in the prenex of the bridi whose selbri is ponse, which is within the x2 of nitcu. This makes all the difference. > As someone just pointed out, this is a from of >sumti-raising which the definition of {nitcu} seems to allow. Yes, {nitcu} allows both types of x2, but that doesn't make them have the same meaning. > It works like this >in every language I know (admittedly a very small subset of the set of >languages!). It works like that in Lojban too, when there are no quantification conflicts. For example, there is no significant difference between {mi nitcu lei tanxe} and {mi nitcu le nu mi ponse lei tanxe}. In this case "for these boxes, I need them" and "I need that for these boxes, I have them" are practically equivalent. >Since this is a question of clarifying the language more than of >changing it, we don't have to wait for the end of the baseline >period. {.e'usai} Jorge, John, Bob and any other interested elders >shut themselves away in a virtual chateau for a while, then come >up with a specific and authoritative pronouncement. I'm not sure I quite qualify as an elder, and besides, it would be a very long while before lojbab and I manage to reach some form of agreement on this kind of discussions. Also, I much prefer reasoned debate over authoritative pronouncements. >Obviously we >can't force usage on people, but I for one would be happy to use >articles in any way that is suggested, so long as the suggestion >is clear enough. Me too. But clarity seems to be hard to achieve on this issue. co'o mi'e xorxes