From lojban-beginners+bncCIycn8S8DhDr75XrBBoEVyKCrw@googlegroups.com Wed Feb 23 13:11:26 2011 Received: from mail-vw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PsLzW-0005I9-3a; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:11:26 -0800 Received: by vws1 with SMTP id 1sf2009227vws.16 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:11:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=B2ElmGvDrBX+LrVjHBo6vL20W0x/d+yu9bBDoVir2Yg=; b=Km7dut4TutwGvyfoZ1nkAsPmivsRrDf0uKZ4Kz8SsK/yKqUnt4k3L4z0VS2EXCzIaM k93VDDsSzUq9LHu4aJw9zif1OtcuIuP644Msn5ks1qyKVzswC4Vp6O68RINZrsWn1ouW tlj2EceOgYpqYRrxKVsoK/9vkD0tLeEINqmUs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=s3O+H4yfrLX8Fl+PlJ/ll+hi0jaOKvJpXjzUPMx+U/kUnLyXbfmBYif+5VXKSU9pby /0a2dpEdiUTRLFTaj292FufYh7yOxDczErWFtwEzIukeYxqtjQnBjRgoLTRdxZMtNG/j 31zmCtw9Hrw18ctK42hO9nHTPqU3j1XqynDAo= Received: by 10.220.186.139 with SMTP id cs11mr471019vcb.44.1298495467877; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:11:07 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.220.53.138 with SMTP id m10ls567958vcg.2.p; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:11:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.89.81 with SMTP id d17mr287806vcm.27.1298495466854; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:11:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.89.81 with SMTP id d17mr287803vcm.27.1298495466777; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:11:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qw0-f43.google.com (mail-qw0-f43.google.com [209.85.216.43]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x13si1253477vcr.15.2011.02.23.13.11.06 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:11:06 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.43 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.43; Received: by mail-qw0-f43.google.com with SMTP id 7so3482157qwb.2 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:11:06 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.216.196 with SMTP id hj4mr3293576qab.63.1298495466574; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:11:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.222.15 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:11:06 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <201102171403.40004.phma@phma.optus.nu> <201102171622.02738.phma@phma.optus.nu> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:11:06 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] Question about {roda} From: Michael Turniansky To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: mturniansky@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.43 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mturniansky@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com; contact lojban-beginners+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3005dce40712dc049cf98933 --20cf3005dce40712dc049cf98933 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2011/2/23 Jorge Llamb=EDas > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Michael Turniansky > wrote: > > But certainly, why can't "le > > prenu" mean, "lo prenu poi ba zvati le tersla .u lo prenu poi mi djuno = lo > > du'u ke'a zvati le tersla" [(those persons that will be at the party) > > whether-or-not (those persons I know will be at the party)]? > > (You need "ku'o" in front of ".u") > Yeah, actually, originally, I had it, when I thought your sentence was different (I was describing it as the stuff that the listener had in mind, not as people at a party). When I realized I hadn't properly addressed you= r scenario, I erased and rewrote that part, but I cut too much. u'u > > I'm not saying "le" can't be used that way. I only say I don't know > how "le" is meant to be used. > > > That's the way > > I'm defining le to refer to in this instance. I may not people to > enumerate > > who they are, but I can still (mentally) refer to them as "whoever will > be > > at the party". That's the whole point of "le". It basically screams > > "context dependant". > > The usual explanation for "le broda" is that it is used to refer to > certain things that the speaker has in mind (and that the speaker > chooses to describe as broda), not to whatever things fit a certain > description that the speaker has in mind (but that the speaker chooses > to describe as broda instead). Do you agree there is a difference > bewteen those two? > I am asserting that "le" refers to the members of some set (possibly empty??) that the speaker has in mind, but it doesn't mean that the speaker has to be aware of what those members actually are, _in fact_. > In any case, all this stuff about "le" has nothing to do with my > point, which was the comparison of "ro da" and "ro prenu". > Except that that wasn't the point of yours that I was referring to most recently, which started with your message of "If "ro prenu" can, in some contexts, refer to the 6 or 7 billion people alive that make up the human population of the Earth today, then it can just as well refer, in a different context, to the 6 or 7 people in the room now. There are, in both cases, an infinite number of potential values being left out that may turn up in another context." > > "ro prenu" is more qualified, > > and hence more restrictive than "ro da". > > In any domain of discourse that includes things that are not prenu, of > course it is. If the domain of discourse includes only things that are > prenu, it isn't more restrictive. > > You seem to be saying that for you there is no such thing as a domain > of discourse, or alternatively, that there is one and only one domain > of discourse that applies to any and all utterances. Am I > understanding you correctly? I'm saying 1) that domains of discourse can't be implicitly figured out b= y context, they must be explicit, and additionally, that 2) "ro da/de/di", without further qualification, refers to capital E everything. And that 3) "ro le ___" is a simple solution that papers over everything (ro da poi se srana) because it says you are restriciting the context explicitly (althoug= h exactly to what is implilcit). --gejyspa > > --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Lojban Beginners" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@= googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= -beginners?hl=3Den. --20cf3005dce40712dc049cf98933 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2011/2/23 Jorge Llamb=EDas <= ;jjllambias@gmail.com>
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Michael Turniansky
&l= t;mturniansky@gmail.com> wr= ote:
> But certainly, why can't "le
> prenu" mean= , "lo prenu poi=A0ba zvati le tersla=A0.u lo prenu poi mi djuno lo
> du'u ke'a zvati le tersla" [(those persons that will be a= t the party)
> whether-or-not (those persons I know will be at the pa= rty)]?

(You need "ku'o" in front of ".u&quo= t;)
=A0
=A0 Yeah, actually, originally, I had it, when I thought your sentence= was different (I was describing it as the stuff that the listener had in m= ind, not as people at a party).=A0 When I realized I hadn't properly ad= dressed your scenario, I erased and rewrote that part, but I cut too much.= =A0 u'u
=A0
=A0

I'm not saying "le&= quot; can't be used that way. I only say I don't know
how "= le" is meant to be used.

> That's the way
> I'm defining le t= o refer to in this instance.=A0 I may not people to enumerate
> who t= hey are, but I can still (mentally) refer to them as "whoever will be<= br> > at the party".=A0 That's the whole point of "le".= =A0=A0It basically screams
> "context dependant".

The usual explanation for "le broda" is that it is used to re= fer to
certain things that the speaker has in mind (and that the speaker
choose= s to describe as broda), not to whatever things fit a certain
descriptio= n that the speaker has in mind (but that the speaker chooses
to describe= as broda instead). Do you agree there is a difference
bewteen those two?
=A0 I am asserting that "le" refers to the members of some s= et (possibly empty??) that the speaker has in mind, but it doesn't mean= that the speaker has to be aware of what those members actually are, _in f= act_.
=A0
=A0
In any case, all this stuff abou= t "le" has nothing to do with my
point, which was the comparis= on of "ro da" and "ro prenu".
=A0
=A0
=A0 Except that that wasn't the point of yours that I was referrin= g to most recently, which started with your message of
"If "ro prenu" can, in some contexts, refer to the 6 or= 7 billion
people alive that make up the human population of the Earth t= oday,
then it can just as well refer, in a different context, to the 6 o= r 7
people in the room now. There are, in both cases, an infinite number
of = potential values being left out that may turn up in another
context.&quo= t;
=A0
=A0
=A0
> "ro prenu" is more qualified,
> and = hence more restrictive than "ro da".

In any domain o= f discourse that includes things that are not prenu, of
course it is. If= the domain of discourse includes only things that are
prenu, it isn't more restrictive.

You seem to be saying that for= you there is no such thing as a domain
of discourse, or alternatively, = that there is one and only one domain
of discourse that applies to any a= nd all utterances. Am I
understanding you correctly?
=A0
=A0 I'm saying 1) that domains of discourse can't be implicitl= y figured out by context, they must be explicit, and additionally, that 2) = "ro da/de/di", without further qualification, refers to capital E= everything.=A0 And that 3) "ro le ___" is a simple solution that= papers over everything (ro da poi se srana) because it says you are restri= citing the context explicitly (although exactly to what is implilcit).
=A0
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 --gejyspa
=A0
=A0
=A0

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@= googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= -beginners?hl=3Den.
--20cf3005dce40712dc049cf98933--