From robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx Mon Sep 27 01:58:52 1999
X-Digest-Num: 245
Message-ID: <44114.245.1346.959273825@eGroups.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:58:52 +0300
From: Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx
Subject: Is anyone else getting this kind of message?



This is a reminder that the e-mail account which you have contacted no longer exists. To protect confidentiality, the message you sent has been deleted unread.

If your message was related to the work of the Northern and Yorkshire Cancer Registry & Information Service, please re-send it to m.hood@ulth.northy.nhs.uk

If it was a personal message, please re-send it to andrew.smith20@virgin.net

This reminder notice will be deleted on 1/1/2000

>>> robin 09/27/99 09:01 >>>

From: Robin Turner <robin@Bilkent.EDU.TR>

la pityr. cusku di'e

> I would guess from the fact that tense markers are possible between "lo"
> and its selbri indicates that the meaning of "lo P" without any tense
> marker on P has the same tense connotations as "da cu P", i.e. the tense
> under which P is true is simply unspecified.
>
> So AFAICT, "lo P cu Q" means exactly the same as "lo Q cu P";
> both mean "some X, Tense1, Tense2: P(X, Tense1) & Q(X, Tense2)".

.ieru'e

In classical semantic terms, this holds:

lo gerku cu barda = at least one thing which is a dog, is big
lo barda cu gerku = at least one thing which is big, is a dog

But in terms of pragmatics (or cognitive semantics) there is a difference, at
least in English. "Big dog" is not the intersection of the set of big things
and the set of dogs, but a dog which is big _by the standard of dogs_.
Similarly a small galaxy is not a small thing. How Lojban handles this, I'm
not sure. We can assume that

lo gerku cu barda

is implicitly

lo gerku cu barda fi lo'i gerku

but to read

lo barda cu gerku

as

lo barda be fi lo'i gerku cu gerku

takes a bit more imagination.

co'o mi'e robin.

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com