From jjllambias@gmail.com Thu Oct 18 06:54:26 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:54:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.184]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IiVpL-0006NO-6Q for llg-members@lojban.org; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:54:25 -0700 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 4so126670nfv for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:54:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=M8kPBQ7O1Xjfj3wVec5ZhuR8KcATgNcyj5st4egZ4iA=; b=cHF/JG53os5OK4Pjt058A2CHL1n0Hq22SbTeuxz+sfDKuTPA562G5XWSbd9JD7PU/EXDeTRuJBk3i4Ib2JoFTjf46TEXW5BWSS6DM9RhlV/ZQrJeSyzxiZq8tBYW91pk21d55jr+VCyS1JPb6l2Ui6cfGyRTm206mMIHTWfogZk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=HQynJ55Vnn3owsBQHNhSJD0VgT9ees16dqC2woTB+Xx8jb84EeSOEVGmFnGwGL4pIbquUhlrXxqINmdbafvJZ+Y0j7xTaWIubEU2GR4YWDxfghQ988Mh54hyDPJHbSa9RJCil2v/ByTQijfYstCOLJR9ThELar+Z1N3Fj5divhU= Received: by 10.86.96.18 with SMTP id t18mr465274fgb.1192715653588; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:54:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.86.13 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:54:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560710180654v213fba16xa3cf999faa5abb6b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:54:13 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: LLG AGM 2007: New Business In-Reply-To: <20071018132508.GD15126@mercury.ccil.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20071016193843.GI5630@digitalkingdom.org> <20071016202338.GL5630@digitalkingdom.org> <20071016213405.GG28745@mercury.ccil.org> <20071016213807.GO5630@digitalkingdom.org> <20071016220537.GI28745@mercury.ccil.org> <20071016222008.GK28745@mercury.ccil.org> <4715D3E3.5000003@gmail.com> <20071018132508.GD15126@mercury.ccil.org> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 448 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members On 10/18/07, John Cowan wrote: > > Well, what I meant was that given a sentence with unquantified "le", > (or for that matter any other article, though I am talking only about > "le" today), under xorlo one may replace it with unquantified "lo" without > changing the truth conditions, because while "le" still means +specific, > "lo" is neutral as to specificity. Thus one may avoid "le" altogether, > and I am declaring that I for one do not welcome this. Yes, that's a fair characterization. But similarly you can replace {lo bi'u broda} with {lo broda} without changing the truth conditions. > (Fortunately, quantified "lo" and its article-less equivalent are > still -specific.) Only in the same sense that quantified "le" is -specific, i.e. only in the sense that any logical quantification is -specific. When you say {ci le gerku cu blabi} you don't say *which* three of the dogs are white. mu'o mi'e xorxes