From jjllambias@gmail.com Thu Oct 18 12:23:45 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:23:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.185]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Iiay5-0008Ek-RO for llg-members@lojban.org; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:23:45 -0700 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 4so203930nfv for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:23:39 -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=pcofxR3AFMBrTF9iaEAnDF3XrSq3K5mqfcAKvIWP0Uk=; b=G/m4VTBM/xLMu2yHyprFqsUP5YBaJ5qTkelYkBE+Ew6fWTfRzWMF3+8OaRLSbOdPSLP0neXEtTCdKkseM3TewqIXbpfFVJXnptaLcPeeVA/w2OwoORLrEpToY+sYEwJWH4vVbno0MLvmdojpCJGJ+kQ3QL79vW0E3u7z9OLF7K0= 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=ucQwQPUfGKjHk9SPp89Wl5K2500F4lp0iE/30wqVtJ/v0OdiMWg7jz0is4jdGHyWEcX1D+LrFvCQ9csLjh6JUJ+tLHz9okg7jdibflUweWOM6IWu1B4eLqwG9Az9o0B6jqBXCwdgpGHCats303R3JqNxBwQXEUUk4D6Bb5g2X88= Received: by 10.86.84.5 with SMTP id h5mr699060fgb.1192735419111; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:23:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.86.13 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:23:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560710181223h34af94c7me31f16b46913b9f6@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:23:39 -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: <47179EF7.5060902@lojban.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> <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> <47179EF7.5060902@lojban.org> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 451 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, Bob LeChevalier wrote: > > But my point, I think, is that "specific" > wasn't part of the verbiage we originally used in the design, and if the > gadri have developed a specific/non-specific distinction, it is probably > because of the habits of the primarily-English speakers who looked for > and found such a distinction. JCB's description of {le} does not use the word "specific", but it certainly describes {le} as specific: 'the one thing, or set of things, which I intend to designate with this phrase and which is apparently a...'. (Note: by "set" JCB does not mean "mathematical set", just more than one thing.) "The one(s) which I intend to designate" is a paraphrase of "specific". And whether "specific" was part of the original design or not, it is a part of the currently official baseline as given in CLL. So Veijo's complaint about it being malglico should be directed towards the official baseline, not towards xorlo which has little to do with that. In fact, he should support xorlo's {lo} with the meaning he wants of "that which fits the description" instead of containing anything additional about specificity, quantifiers, distributivity or whatnot. His rant was misdirected. mu'o mi'e xorxes