Re: veridicality of lo - late response

[John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>]

la lojbab. cusku di'e
> If I say "mi nitcu lo tanxe" I am implying that any box will suffice,
> from a ring-box to a refrigerator-box.

Well, no.  All you're saying is:

        da poi tanxe zo'u mi nitcu da
        There-is-something which is-a-box/boxes such-that I need it.
        A box is what I need.

It may be the case that there are other restrictions on the box in
question, even such specific ones that only one box will do.  Or it may
be the case that any box will suffice.  The sentence doesn't say.

> If I say "mi nitcu le tanxe" I
> am implying a specific in-mind box (which may not truthfully fit the
> predicate ke'a tanxe).

Yes.

> If I say "mi nitcu da voi tanxe" I am getting
> something half-way in between - I don't think it is necessarily a
> specific box, but the restriction is certainly specific and in-mind and
> not necessarily veridical.  (Does this solve that bloody "any" problem?)

I don't think so.  This variant is the same as the "le tanxe" version as
far as I can see:  the specificity comes from the "voi".

--
John Cowan                                              cowan@ccil.org
                        e'osai ko sarji la lojban.