Received: from mail-vw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]:59572) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RFqvN-0005RX-Vm; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:24:39 -0700 Received: by vws16 with SMTP id 16sf2527432vws.16 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:24:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; 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:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=OpOlLBN08aaMwWxizUFxXc+m43cVKN+QS5oG2Daw7OM=; b=ArEeLiT4C5P/7kpuT5LYrfSUoct3xOI5RKJwX/pVeUClisVMwmPyF7Ns3PNWhEs6xO XGgBFVJNmk83xoVuiiqXjTLEh2JzUYy6igT5QKJT8fJycf7zE+Ax4xaMzQRf63q/plG5 p7G+V3/5JjA4nvfqmrcvmxcbCZU9Qsoru1gao= Received: by 10.220.7.11 with SMTP id b11mr306812vcb.32.1318872260554; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:24:20 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.52.24.163 with SMTP id v3ls9367568vdf.3.gmail; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:24:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.64.173 with SMTP id p13mr14557121vds.0.1318872260100; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:24:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.64.173 with SMTP id p13mr14557118vds.0.1318872260087; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:24:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qw0-f43.google.com (mail-qw0-f43.google.com [209.85.216.43]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i18si7054819vde.1.2011.10.17.10.24.19 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:24:20 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@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 g14so4295156qab.30 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:24:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.76.209 with SMTP id d17mr3400892qak.87.1318872259915; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:24:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.50.138 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:24:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.50.138 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:24:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20111017022403.GA13355@gonzales> References: <20111015185726.GC3779@gonzales> <20111015203444.GD3779@gonzales> <20111015221511.GF3779@gonzales> <20111015232240.GG3779@gonzales> <20111016222320.GD21114@gonzales> <20111017022403.GA13355@gonzales> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 18:24:02 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable From: And Rosta To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.43 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3074b7208e6eea04af81e0eb X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / --20cf3074b7208e6eea04af81e0eb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I've used "le du" as equivalent to english antecedentless personal pronouns and definite covert arguments. But "lo du" for "zo'e" seems extraordinary. It's fine where "zo'e" is understood as "something/someone", but seems perverse otherwise. ,, And On 17 Oct 2011 03:24, "Martin Bays" wrote: * Sunday, 2011-10-16 at 21:49 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas : > On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Martin Bays wrote: > > * Saturday, 2011-10-15 at... > Where the referent of "zo'e" is roses, yes. > > > =3D=3D {zo'e rozgu gi'e xunre} > > =3D=3D {zo'e xunre gi'e rozgu} > > =3D=3D {zo'e noi xunre cu ... > So far so good. > > > =3D=3D {lo xunre cu rozgu} > > But "zo'e noi xunre" could be changed to "lo xunre" only if the > referent of "zo'e" was red things. We already know that the referent > of zo'e in all the previous sentences was roses, so we can't transform > "zo'e noi xunre" into "lo xunre". > > Alternatively: "zo'e" is not like "ko'a", something that gets a > referent and keeps it more or less indefinitely. The referent of > "zo'e" gets assigned by context, and the sentence in which it appears > is very much part of its context. "lo rozgu" =3D=3D "zo'e noi rozgu" only > in the context of defining "lo rozgu". With a different context, > "zo'e" might get assigned a different referent and thus "zo'e noi > rozgu" might no longer be replaceable by "lo rozgu". > > (All of which may amount to saying that "{lo} -> {zo'e noi}" should > not be taken too literally, and "{zo'e noi} -> {lo}" is even less > certain.) OK. I wonder then whether "{zo'e} =3D=3D {lo du}" mightn't be a more accurate summation of the relation between {zo'e} and {lo}. (assuming that everything, pluralities and kinds included, dus itself) Martin --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den. --20cf3074b7208e6eea04af81e0eb Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I've used "le du" as equivalent to english antecedentless = personal pronouns and definite covert arguments. But "lo du" for = "zo'e" seems extraordinary. It's fine where "zo'= e" is understood as "something/someone", but seems perverse = otherwise.

,, And

On 17 Oct 2011 03:24, "Martin Bays" = <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

* = Sunday, 2011-10-16 at 21:49 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>:

> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Martin= Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
= > > * Saturday, 2011-10-15 at...
> Where the referent of= "zo'e" is roses, yes.

>
> > =A0 =A0=3D=3D {zo'e rozgu= gi'e xunre}
> > =A0 =A0=3D=3D {zo'e xunre gi'e rozgu}=
> > =A0 =A0=3D=3D {zo'e noi xunre cu ...
> So fa= r so good.

>
> > =A0 =A0=3D=3D {lo xunre cu ro= zgu}
>
> But "zo'e noi xunre" could be ch= anged to "lo xunre" only if the
> referent of "zo'e" was red things. We already know that = the referent
> of zo'e in all the previous sentences was roses, so we can't t= ransform
> "zo'e noi xunre" into "lo xunre".
>
> Alternatively: "zo'e" is not like "ko'a", = something that gets a
> referent and keeps it more or less indefinitely. The referent of
> "zo'e" gets assigned by context, and the sentence in whi= ch it appears
> is very much part of its context. "lo rozgu" =3D=3D "zo= 'e noi rozgu" only
> in the context of defining "lo rozgu". With a different cont= ext,
> "zo'e" might get assigned a different referent and thus = "zo'e noi
> rozgu" might no longer be replaceable by "lo rozgu". >
> (All of which may amount to saying that "{lo} -> {zo'e noi= }" should
> not be taken too literally, and "{zo'e noi} -> {lo}" = is even less
> certain.)

OK.

I wonder then whether "{zo'e} =3D=3D {lo du}" mightn't be= a more accurate
summation of the relation between {zo'e} and {lo}.

(assuming that everything, pluralities and kinds included, dus itself)

Martin

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--20cf3074b7208e6eea04af81e0eb--