From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Mon Dec 20 11:45:16 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Mon, 20 Dec 2004 11:45:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CgTT2-0008CY-C7 for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Mon, 20 Dec 2004 11:45:16 -0800 Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 11:45:16 -0800 To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: lo nanmu poi na va Message-ID: <20041220194516.GB20429@chain.digitalkingdom.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 957 X-Approved-By: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-beginners On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 06:24:56PM +0100, Newton, Philip wrote: > la epcat cu cusku di'e > > I keep having to get used to the change from CLL, where {lo} > > means "the really is" and {le} means "the described as." If I > > understand correctly from the wiki's BPFK Section: gadri, I > > think {lo nanmu} now means "any of the things that are a man" > > and {le nanmu} now means "a particular man I have in mind." > > I think those mean the same thing; the wording may merely be > confusing. Using {lo} asserts that something really is an X; It is somewhat innacurate, or at least confusing, to say that this is the case with the BPFK's lo. In the current BPFK proposal, {lo broda} refers generically to any thing(s) that is a broda. It refers to broda in the most general possible sense. > using {le} asserts that there is something specific which you will > call an X but need not be an X. (For example, a drag queen might > be a {le ninmu} but not a {lo ninmu}.) That depends entirely on your point of view. The BPFK specifically rejects the idea that it is the language's job to define semantics. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/