Re: veridicality of lo - late response

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

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

No. It means "There is a box that I need".

> 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).  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.

I'd have thought {da voi tanxe} and {le tanxe} should be synonymous.  I
don't see any grounds for their being different.

> (Does this solve that bloody "any" problem?)

No, but I am of the view that it's solved:  everything of an any-related
nature is sayable, especially if pc's 2 new cmavo (or at least the one
marking a sumti as not quantified in the localmost bridi) are adopted.

"I need a box, any box" is, say, {mi dumnitcu loe duu vi tanxe}

---
And