Received: from mail-gh0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]:34175) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1T6L1i-0007Nm-0w; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 05:36:25 -0700 Received: by ghbf16 with SMTP id f16sf5749246ghb.16 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 05:36:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender: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 :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=9ljSosmeq1B6mdVGUnAMsSCptyyJKP9OrHp4hC//hyM=; b=lrXVJ1enuvbMcXQa2WfC2fmNZVOoiz8IUeIojQvC5sI3A4DoKgnCnO6aV6Q5cNsxjD GFx+niUcxjqjKn1HQVDeeZDx+fSIcG9lFjVTeUQ7UxBXJL+UvUE4qgSpsrVfAtE2yflK /3VaOtDKwQImFPxqQUNqTkmAAsAfP6gNiCj2tPQWdINCvfVDQ0696qP7aN4gf51lMaI9 e5dHwLCZu3dZaRftwIgXEWQsPEFI8SxtRB4IznAd4+/7nwd1jrWIpebkBT/mLBiMx2vh 2S7gejDLQVxnLhtUKnx7DLv5plX6BeRkbC9fhA4aioKSawB/SOkGUOdQfO99+aZotGUn QZCQ== Received: by 10.52.180.202 with SMTP id dq10mr2251013vdc.17.1346157367367; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 05:36:07 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.52.156.112 with SMTP id wd16ls161496vdb.6.gmail; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 05:36:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.91.100 with SMTP id cd4mr5771326veb.8.1346157366568; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 05:36:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.91.100 with SMTP id cd4mr5771325veb.8.1346157366560; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 05:36:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f48.google.com (mail-vb0-f48.google.com [209.85.212.48]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ef10si3958560vdb.3.2012.08.28.05.36.06 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 28 Aug 2012 05:36:06 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of paskios@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.48 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.48; Received: by mail-vb0-f48.google.com with SMTP id e21so5542479vbm.21 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 05:36:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.37.194 with SMTP id y2mr13436045vcd.44.1346157366313; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 05:36:06 -0700 (PDT) Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.58.132.236 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 05:36:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <44e6fb5c-91f3-47ba-817c-8560c9c6ca14@googlegroups.com> <502B9E61.8060808@gmx.de> <502BA634.3030007@gmx.de> <502C50EB.3090704@gmail.com> <7e604d79-8ecd-4690-bc39-bf48b601d46f@googlegroups.com> <5036D423.5050101@gmail.com> <5038CEC3.4050708@gmail.com> <5039204B.1060401@gmail.com> <325f818f-76ce-4f3c-b0c0-03dc4db2e9d8@googlegroups.com> <503B8ED4.200@gmail.com> <9019D4E1-8993-4AF4-BD70-AC76E5A9620F@yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:36:05 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] "Any" and {ro} From: tijlan To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: paskios@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of paskios@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.48 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=paskios@gmail.com; dkim=pass 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: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / On 28 August 2012 05:07, la gleki wrote: >> I don't see how xorlo -- widely appealed to but poorly understood -- >> affects this point, since it did not change the specific (or was it >> definite?) status of { le}. The thought that {le} is somehow related to >> attitudinals (but {lo} is not?) needs some developing to be clear. > > Now it's history. I guess both {lo}/{le} worked like attitudinals. But now > {lo}={zo'e noi} so we need to find another better way of solving this > problem. {le} has seen ambiguous uses in veridical or non-veridical descriptions. Pre-xorlo {le plise} could refer to something that is or isn't really an apple. That stands to be the case today too, since its BPFK section still has the classic example of {le ninmu}, a man who looks like a woman. And it seems to me that either usage (veridical/non-veridical) would concern a specific entity. The effective differences could be summarized as follows: lo plise = zo'e noi plise (something that is veridically plise) le plise = zo'e noi plise poi co'e (something that is veridically plise and can be further specified) le plise = zo'e voi plise poi co'e (something that is non-veridically plise and can be further specified) But {voi} is restrictive unlike {noi}, and I'm not entirely sure how it would logically interact with {zo'e}. mu'o -- 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@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.