Received: from mail-bw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.214.61]:39447)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRD80LH1BBoEojj8CA@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RKFxI-0007JW-RG; Sat, 29 Oct 2011 13:56:47 -0700
Received: by bke11 with SMTP id 11sf1666369bke.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 29 Oct 2011 13:56:32 -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
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=FBEsu6BN9BUgkBHNqD07z+SxBvw+acRcAwXt6bFyLC4=;
        b=tyXD0dCWH4EULYrMF28MBzfBSzHsVzf+JC71h/lDnA8piu8CAk6lakqV1Hej6WsBCa
         GAwOZcFusULC01w+TEF1bmtrY99wQUoElvwZp069Y8nmGRFZ9vct+ZHJxrQU3frNKUL6
         fGpx65XMq2Mw/V+NS6PAo9yAjNb85QgJIDKy0=
Received: by 10.204.140.10 with SMTP id g10mr3753bku.12.1319921788534;
        Sat, 29 Oct 2011 13:56:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.204.29.7 with SMTP id o7ls1458812bkc.2.gmail; Sat, 29 Oct 2011
 13:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.205.116.5 with SMTP id fg5mr1006431bkc.3.1319921783096;
        Sat, 29 Oct 2011 13:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.205.116.5 with SMTP id fg5mr1006429bkc.3.1319921783085;
        Sat, 29 Oct 2011 13:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f42.google.com (mail-fx0-f42.google.com [209.85.161.42])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f1si953808fae.1.2011.10.29.13.56.23
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sat, 29 Oct 2011 13:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.42 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.42;
Received: by faar15 with SMTP id r15so4716022faa.15
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sat, 29 Oct 2011 13:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.36.193 with SMTP id u1mr16170821fad.27.1319921782919; Sat,
 29 Oct 2011 13:56:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.152.5.165 with HTTP; Sat, 29 Oct 2011 13:56:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20111029145956.GB9385@gonzales>
References: <4EA5F890.6070501@gmail.com>
	<20111025002558.GA27114@gonzales>
	<4EA60BBC.1040707@gmail.com>
	<20111025021504.GB27114@gonzales>
	<4EA68224.1080406@gmail.com>
	<20111026033114.GB3119@gonzales>
	<4EA7BF06.5050103@gmail.com>
	<4EAA8AC9.2010000@gmail.com>
	<20111029001437.GA5535@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2f4jH3Y-45PwMN=KZFMtxjHA7dbmU8en=NDZL=eS=o9PQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20111029145956.GB9385@gonzales>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 17:56:22 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2c49SHSsw98hxgb0AxBP9WKWAYHBs6n2gzb29Mh6e-3ZA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.42 as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=jjllambias@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: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> * Saturday, 2011-10-29 at 10:55 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmai=
l.com>:
>>
>> But wouldn't that just shift the whole discussion from "cinfo" to "dacti=
"?
>
> Well, And seemed (I may well have misunderstood) willing to accept that
> lojban should be able to handle the notion of an object, just not that
> {cinfo} and similar should involve objects by default.

My point was that we would want what you would call Object as much as
what you call Lion.

>> ca lo djedi lo mamta remna cu kansa lo re panzi be ri be'o no'u la
>> .mupl. jo'u la .kles.
>
> Off-topic, but why {jo'u} rather than {joi}? Do you have a theory of
> what the difference between those words is?

jo'u -> lo [re]
joi -> loi [re]
.e -> ro [lo re]
.a -> su'o [lo re]
na.enai -> no [lo re]
na.anai -> me'i [lo re]
.onai -> pa [lo re]
.o -> (vei) no .a ro [lo re]

The difference between jo'u and joi is parallel to whatever difference
there is between lo and loi.

> I was kind of thinking that {jo'u} should work like {e}, but be
> processed only after everything else so it has "innermost scope";
> e.g. {broda ko'a jo'u ko'e ro brode} =3D=3D {broda ro brode ko'a .e ko'e}=
.
>
> But that doesn't fit with how you just used it.

No, I don't think "jo'u" is necessarily distributive.

>> .i ca bo viska lo cinfo noi darno .i la .mupl.
>> jo'u la .kles. no roi pu viska lo cinfo gi'e djica lo nu klama ri gi'e
>> kelci .i ku'i lo mamta remna cu jungau ra lo du'u lo cinfo cu ckape .e
>> lo du'u .ei no roi klama lo jibni be ri .i ca lo bavlamdei ca lo nu lo
>> mamta remna vu crepu lo grute kei la .kles. cu viska da noi ca'o
>> jbibi'o gi'e cusku lu ju'i .mupl. lo cinfo za'u re'u zvati .i .e'u
>> mi'o cliva li'u .i ku'i la .mupl. cu cmila gi'e cusku lu doi bebna tu
>> na cinfo .i mi pu viska lo nu lo pilba'a cu jadni lo sedycra be lo
>> cinfo
>
> Yes, that's just the sad kind of error you're likely to make if you
> aren't taught about individuals... he thinks that just because {lo cinfo
> cu broda}, it follows that {ro na broda na ku cinfo} - which is valid if
> {pa da cinfo} (which his kindly mother presumably taught him), modulo
> complicated tense issues he can be forgiven for overlooking.

My theory is that when the mother told him ".ei ko no roi klama lo
jibni be ri" he was unable to identify a wide enough referent for
"ri", perhaps because he had his mind too set on mundanes.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--=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.