Re: Cowan's summary #3: any old X at all

[jlk@netcom.com (Gerald Koenig)]

djan said:
>
>I believe that the difference between:
>
>1)      I want a sandwich
>
>and
>
>2)      I want any (old) sandwich (at all)
>
>is captured in Lojban by the attitudinal pair "sa'e"/"sa'enai" for
>"strictly speaking" vs. "loosely speaking".  Thus Example 1 is
>translated:
>
>3)      mi djica tu'a lo snuji sa'enai
>
>where the predicate "snuji" is marked as not to be strictly interpreted, i.e
>possibly having context-dependent restrictions (a moldy sandwich that
>has been chewed on by a warthog, as And says, won't do), whereas:
>
>4)      mi djica tu'a lo snuji sa'e
>
>translates Example 2:  anything that may truthfully fit into the x1 place
>of "snuji" is in order here.
-----------------------------------

John and others seem to agree that all the meaning  in the English "any"
can be captured by a universal quantifier or an attitude marker. I
disagree.  Consider this meaning from my Webster's:

"1: one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind:
1a: one or another taken at random <ask ~man you meet>."

There are two anys here. One taken indiscriminately or some taken
indiscriminately. I want to consider the case of one taken
indiscriminately. It certainly cannot be expressed as "all". Neither is
it an just an attitude.  We're talking about quantification here, namely
one something.

To be taken indiscriminately implies a choice from a larger set, at
least two.  

pa lo su'o re da
one of the at least two real x's.

would express one selected from a set of at least two.   But that's a
mouthful. Why not xe'e?

I want (any) sandwich would be

mi djica pa lo su'o re snuji   or

mi djica xe'e lo snuji, vs. djan's (with others),

mi djica tu'a lo snuji sa'e

With  the last the waitress would be justified in bringing a sandwich
tray, with the first she would be constrained to bring one
indiscriminately chosen sandwich.  I say this because of the vagueness
of tu'a. Why not call a spade a spade? 

djer