Re: TECH: Any old thing whatsoever (mi nitcu lo tanxe)

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

la ken cusku di'e


> Case 1:
> When I say "mi nitcu lo tanxe", everything's fine (IMHO) if there
> indeed exists a box which fits my needs (the sentence doesn't say
> which one), since the implicit quantifier for "lo" is "su'o lo ro".

Yes, but notice that it doesn't correspond to the claim in English
"I need a box", which usually doesn't say that.

It is easier to see why with "I need two boxes" vs "mi nitcu re tanxe"

The first one (in English) is not a claim about boxes. It is a claim
about me and my needs.

The second one says that there are two boxes (which I'm not specifying,
but there exist only two of them) such that I need them. If there is
a third box that satisfies my needs the claim is false.

In the case of English "I need two boxes" on the other hand, there may
be millions of boxes that will satisfy my need. My need is for the
state of having two boxes, not a need for two of the boxes.

(In some cases, the English sentence can mean what the Lojban sentence
says. For example: I need two boxes, this one here and the one with the
books.)

> Case 2:
> However, if there are boxes in this world but none fits my need,
> then the sumti "lo tanxe" is valid, but the assertion that "mi nitcu
> lo tanxe" (i.e., >=1 of all boxes in this world is needed by me")
> is false, since I need none of the existing boxes.  Rather, I need
> a box *which does not exist now*.  The problem is, there seems to be
> no description for "something which does not exist".
> Perhaps "loba tanxe"?

{lo tanxe} includes {lo ba tanxe}, so there's no problem. You could
say
        mi nitcu lo tanxe  i mi ba zbasu le se go'i
        I need a box. I will make it.

Here there is no problem. It is true that there is a box needed by me,
and which one it is is also clear: the one I will make.

> Case 3:
> Suppose that there are no boxes in this world.  Then the description
> "lo tanxe" becomes a source of problem itself.  Is the description
> "lo tanxe" == "su'o lo ro tanxe" still valid when no boxes exist?
> I suppose the "ro" part is still fine, but the "su'o" invalidates the
> description (how do you choose >=1 things out of nothing?).

I'm not sure what's the answer to this, but I think it is not directly
related to the transparent/opaque problem. (The non-existence has
different effects on the two cases, but there still are two cases.
In the opaque case, existence or non-existence is irrelevant. In the
transparent case, existence is implied.)

> =======================================================================
> On the other hand, how do I explicitly claim that an abstraction is true?
> I can (1) say so in a separate sentence; or (2) use "lenu...kei noi jetnu".

I wouldn't say that. Either {le du'u ... kei noi jetnu} = "the fact
that ...., which is true" or {le nu ... kei noi ca'a fasnu} = "the event of
..., which actually occurs".

I don't like {le nu ... kei cu jetnu}. Claims are true or false. Events
happen or don't happen.


Jorge