Received: from mail-qa0-f55.google.com ([209.85.216.55]:38211) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TzoXT-0002pZ-26; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 05:14:28 -0800 Received: by mail-qa0-f55.google.com with SMTP id j8sf1207796qah.0 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 05:14:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:date:from:to:message-id :in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender :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=za4T/dFJ04KH2egZh/r8K2JKld95Qs40ioPuPGKQ59g=; b=Gtyz/dISO+6NGYx+jT9tDU2em+k1JS1FKH3CnwFMLrLd3dwwZbAo6zHYZFH74Ok41a jmKu+9itjqdk8t0ac50+EYmdsKMt45JIRC8BZJfPrdg3PV64erDfuJ/HXP0t9eupsuMI Mr6Jdwox1/2AuGe9HxOUfOMk2iCoCmWB5qZoJ6YenxiEhnW8oZeHB8/visEQ24NcMj/+ Qr2hKrd5+DKjgAkT0dyOTW8MlfLrDgOasmPmaUvxQWWVRqd768FB6kAtQqj9oAi8wtIU hvq1cxdCJUK3bXgmEf705GdA9bNYrGJxtlp+tpXNgYxvgrXfZwnwMYFGYxOBGPEo0ss3 qapw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:date:from:to:message-id :in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender :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=za4T/dFJ04KH2egZh/r8K2JKld95Qs40ioPuPGKQ59g=; b=pjUqYgYJvAI27FI9Y6s5RiigRlyMZVkzcAQUYUPwZKOUFZrgLtfiEZjfzO6dw+IoFa AIS0fDasYwtQcE00U8/UqluMtGfBofxlKXNfyF6GAoN0cOXV5717Rf5399m43bUw5T5d FiB7nENKiXdRk2xKYHvFnAZBO43yFir4Wx6id/r2JPEQNQQGkCjtuA716/OyJQG2JbW1 qWTSjcqxkT+/za3gPhx3vrWnbc19ah+QM5nVjb4gAnGJ4BaccxDD599dFieTf+M7jEud +0aTD/2yF7BVRhPzbS12sdnYjoNAM5jxaCnTL6fMtufl4yA+ca65EltQMVbZoEwOkKNU t6jw== X-Received: by 10.49.24.13 with SMTP id q13mr2224983qef.33.1359378852265; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 05:14:12 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.49.116.139 with SMTP id jw11ls1042373qeb.37.gmail; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 05:14:10 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.49.48.41 with SMTP id i9mr2249017qen.36.1359378850607; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 05:14:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 05:14:09 -0800 (PST) From: la gleki To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: <3bbf41a0-9bcd-4ab3-a78c-a6c4c17e6e8d@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <20130128125103.GI20956@samsa.fritz.box> References: <1696426.fuu6unn560@caracal> <47fd82fb-126d-41a3-aa58-fca6ab2fdbde@googlegroups.com> <20130128102447.GH20956@samsa.fritz.box> <567c078e-13fa-45c1-b22d-c57a45eed8af@googlegroups.com> <20130128125103.GI20956@samsa.fritz.box> Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Aesop's "The Wolf and the Crane" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@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="----=_Part_915_11817384.1359378849116" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_915_11817384.1359378849116 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Monday, January 28, 2013 4:51:03 PM UTC+4, v4hn wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 03:46:49AM -0800, la gleki wrote: > > On Monday, January 28, 2013 2:24:47 PM UTC+4, v4hn wrote: > > > "the not-newly-introduced thing that brodas" can still refer to any > number > > > of different individuals /in the universe of discourse/, not just the > one > > > you're talking about in this specific sentence. {lo bi'u nai} has its > > > uses, but that's not one of them in my opinion. > > > > > > > Yes, but given that there is only one such object in the previous > discourse > > this {bi'unai} refers only to it. > > > > I just wanted to point out that this is no general solution. > > > > Did you read the last discussion on that? No it does not fix "any", > > > whatever this is supposed to mean. > > > > > > > {lo} does refer to "any" objects. But this range can be narrowed down > to > > an appropriate interval mostly by using UI, VA etc. > > Yes, {lo broda} _refers_ to any object that brodas, but it does not > share the _intensional meaning_ of "any object that brodas"! > {lo broda} refers to specific individuals /in the universe of discourse/ > (it might introduce them first). On the other hand "any {broda}" does > not necessarily do that(normally it doesn't). You can say "Any apple is > sufficient." > or "Give me any apple" without necessarily refering to a specific apple in > the UD > or introducing one(John and I have different opinions on the introducing > part as far > as I can see). > > That's part of the current state of discussion on the "any" matter. > You're welcome to discuss this in the appropriate thread. > Let's assume (roughly) that english "the" has two meanings. 1. "the" = {bi'unai} 2. "the" = {le}, "a"/"any"={lo} KOhA and BY are alternative ways of saying "the" in it's first meaning. Are you happy with this scheme? > > > If you don't like these, {le} is the best choice you have in my > opinion > > > as it is rather close to at least the latter one. (if you think KOhAs > do > > > not need to get defined with {goi} also to KOhA) > > > I really don't understand this whole movement that tries to prohibit > {le}. > > > > Probably because {le} has shown clear polysemy. > > It was used for things like {le cribe} for teddy-bears as opposed to {lo > > cribe} which were supposed to be Ursidae mammals. > > That's why selpa'i proposed moving {voi} to UI to have a cmavo for > > "described objects". > > We can free {le} from this extraneous meaning. And ok, I'll use it. > > Please elaborate on that (maybe in a new thread). > I don't see any polysemy and I don't see any reason > to move {voi} to UI and I don't know what this would/is supposed to fix. > Also I have the feeling you either didn't understand the last part of my > mail > or you ignored it. > > By the way: After xorlo {lo cribe} _can_, given a context, refer to a > teddy-bear, > can't it? > > > But if {le} refers to apples that one has in mind who is that "one" who > has > > them in mind? Is it the speaker? Then it sounds like an attitudinal. > > /WHAT/? What kind of reasoning is that? If anything that is related to the > speaker should be UI, then why is {mi} a KOhA and not UI as well > polemic-terminator. > > > And next. If {le} refers to things that I have in mind why should we > > suppose that this thing has been previously mentioned? > > We don't. The first {lo broda} could in principle also be {le broda} if > you > don't want to assert at all, that the object you're refering to actually > brodas. If you want to do that, you have to use {lo} at least once > or need to say something like {le broda ku broda}. > {le} fixes reference, nothing more, nothing less. Whatever {brivla} > comes after is used to inform the listener/reader on who/what is the > referent. > > > In this case we have to say {le bi'unai} anyway which will save no > > syllables although may be indeed more precise in meaning. > > Normally you don't need to be this precise, but if you want to be... sure. > > > v4hn > -- 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. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. ------=_Part_915_11817384.1359378849116 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Monday, January 28, 2013 4:51:03 PM UTC+4, v4hn wrote:On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 03:46:49AM -0800= , la gleki wrote:
> On Monday, January 28, 2013 2:24:47 PM UTC+4, v4hn wrote:
> > "the not-newly-introduced thing that brodas" can still refer = to any number=20
> > of different individuals /in the universe of discourse/, not = just the one=20
> > you're talking about in this specific sentence. {lo bi'u nai}= has its=20
> > uses, but that's not one of them in my opinion.=20
> >
>=20
> Yes, but given that there is only one such object in the previous = discourse=20
>  this {bi'unai} refers only to it.
>=20

I just wanted to point out that this is no general solution.

> > Did you read the last discussion on that? No it does not fix = "any",=20
> > whatever this is supposed to mean.=20
> >
>=20
> {lo} does  refer to "any" objects. But this range can be narr= owed down to=20
> an appropriate interval mostly by using UI, VA etc.

Yes, {lo broda} _refers_ to any object that brodas, but it does not
share the _intensional meaning_ of "any object that brodas"!
{lo broda} refers to specific individuals /in the universe of discourse= /
(it might introduce them first). On the other hand "any {broda}" does
not necessarily do that(normally it doesn't). You can say "Any apple is= sufficient."
or "Give me any apple" without necessarily refering to a specific apple= in the UD
or introducing one(John and I have different opinions on the introducin= g part as far
as I can see).

That's part of the current state of discussion on the "any" matter.
You're welcome to discuss this in the appropriate thread.

Let's assume (roughly) that english "t= he" has two meanings.

1. "the" =3D {bi'unai}
=
2. "the" =3D {le}, "a"/"any"=3D{lo}

KOhA and = BY are alternative ways of saying "the" in it's first meaning. Are you happ= y with this scheme?



> > If you don't like these, {le} is the best choice you have in = my opinion=20
> > as it is rather close to at least the latter one. (if you thi= nk KOhAs do=20
> > not need to get defined with {goi} also to KOhA)=20
> > I really don't understand this whole movement that tries to p= rohibit {le}.=20
>=20
> Probably because {le} has shown clear polysemy.
> It was used for things like {le cribe} for teddy-bears as opposed = to {lo=20
> cribe} which were supposed to be Ursidae mammals.
> That's why selpa'i proposed moving {voi} to UI to have a cmavo for= =20
> "described objects".
> We can free {le} from this extraneous meaning. And ok, I'll use it= .

Please elaborate on that (maybe in a new thread).
I don't see any polysemy and I don't see any reason
to move {voi} to UI and I don't know what this would/is supposed to fix= .
Also I have the feeling you either didn't understand the last part of m= y mail
or you ignored it.

By the way: After xorlo {lo cribe} _can_, given a context, refer to a t= eddy-bear,
can't it?

> But if {le} refers to apples that one has in mind who is that "one= " who has=20
> them in mind? Is it the speaker? Then it sounds like an attitudina= l.

/WHAT/? What kind of reasoning is that? If anything that is related to = the
speaker should be UI, then why is {mi} a KOhA and not UI as well polemi= c-terminator.

> And next. If {le} refers to things that I have in mind why should = we=20
> suppose that this thing has been previously mentioned?

We don't. The first {lo broda} could in principle also be {le broda} if= you
don't want to assert at all, that the object you're refering to actuall= y
brodas. If you want to do that, you have to use {lo} at least once
or need to say something like {le broda ku broda}.
{le} fixes reference, nothing more, nothing less. Whatever {brivla}
comes after is used to inform the listener/reader on who/what is the re= ferent.

> In this case we have to say {le bi'unai} anyway which will save no= =20
> syllables although may be indeed more precise in meaning.

Normally you don't need to be this precise, but if you want to be... su= re.


v4hn

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 
------=_Part_915_11817384.1359378849116--