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

[Chung-chieh Shan <ken@MATH.NTU.EDU.TW>]

I (hi everyone; this's my first post I suppose, apologies if I make
errors since I'm the opposite-of-experienced-type-of Lojban-thinker)
see this problem as a need for clarification of what a description
does when nothing fits the description.

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".

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"?

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?).

Changing the description to "su'ono lo tanxe" == "su'ono lo ro tanxe"
makes the sentence a tautology, since it is trivially true that ">=0
boxes in this world is needed by me".

=======================================================================
I see an analogy here between abstractions and descriptions.

Lojban is able to express false/uncertain statements.  To my
understanding, saying "lenu..." does not mean that the event took place.
Nor does saying "ledu'u..." automatically claim that the abstraction
statement is true.

So Lojban is capable of handling "nonexisting abstractions", so to speak.
However, I don't see Lojban handling "nonexisting descriptions".  Maybe
this is why many of the proposed solutions to the "mi nitcu lo tanxe"
problem involves abstractions; abstractions can be false while descriptions
can't; using a description automatically claims that there is something
which fits the description.  (Am I right here?)

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".
So it is also possible to claim the truth of an abstraction, even if you
have to do it explicitly. (of course!)

So how do I use a description without claiming that anything fits that
description?  Something "hypothetical"?
----------
Chung-chieh (Ken) Shan   ken@cauchy.math.ntu.edu.tw
"Ay, fashion you may call it.  Go to, go to." -- Hamlet