FWIW, I recall the CLL mentioning that = using lo and le in a manner analogous to "a" and "the", for back-referencin= g, is bad. I'm just not sure how many of you will agree with the CLL. (Also= , I can't be bothered to look it up.)

{lo} *can* refer to things in context, and have definite ref= erents. It's the *generic* article in the sense that we *don't know* if it'= s being definite or indefinite. The definite-indefinite distinction seems t= o slowly be dying in IRC Lojban, which is -- I'd wager -- where the majorit= y of "spoken" Lojban happens. If there is such a thing as conversational Lo= jban, it's on IRC.

As for the "any" discussion, I'm slowly beginning to se= e the merits of sisku2 as a property. If we use a simple article plus a sel= bri, we invoke {zo'e} and somewhere, there are definite referents that appe= ar. {.i mi sisku lo plise} has the awful problem of having semi-definite re= ferents (quantifierless {lo} doesn't actually need to for strange xorlo rea= sons). However, assuming xorlo strangeness doesn't happen, the formal defin= ition says we can plug in {zo'e noi ke'a plise} (the formal definition shou= ld change, IMVHO, to reflect the fact that {lo} can be quite bullshit-y.) -= > {.i mi sisku zo'e noi ke'a plise}. Here's the proof that actual refere= nts appear. {zo'e} has referents. Now, if any apple will do, there *shouldn= 't* be referents. Now, maybe it's possible to hack our way around this with= {da}-magics, but it seems like invoking the property that is being searche= d for is a more succinct solution, as -- and here's the important part -- *= any* object satisfying that predicate will work.

I haven't really analysed this to a greater degree that= might suggest that using properties can most of the time / always work. I = think however that exploring this possibility is worthwhile, unless we all = get our facts straight about xorlo. (As it is, everyone has their own inter= pretation. Please don't say otherwise. In fact, I used to think I knew what= I was talking about when I said "xorlo", but I realise that I don't. I use= d to think I agreed with certain people about xorlo, but I realise that I d= on't.)

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

P.S. if = this is going to degenerate into a full-blown discussion about articles and= scopes and everything awful in the world, shouldn't we make a new topic?

Yes, let's close the topic and cont= inue where we left last time.

"Any" and {ro} https://group= s.google.com/d/topic/lojban/yh8-ChFLanM/discussion

Other similar topics:

Discussion of {da} https://gr= oups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lojban/wtp1pNm8Nvc

Discussion of {d= a} https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lojban/R1-Bi8p_xmg

Quantifier exactness https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/loj= ban/cJHKEf8kE3Q

--
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_1274_7083579.1359381887658--