Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.138.91.184 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.138.91.184;
Subject: Re: [lojban] Speaker specificity: {.i da'i na vajni}
References: <b15b8cb4-2f0f-45e4-b630-6480ed7d4654@googlegroups.com> <CAO7tK2csEZWF3QqXMW7dnVx28yCt6GWe60buRHMSd5t1yyXSaw@mail.gmail.com> <5427DCE6.9020900@gmx.de> <4004291.GPfs8n1fLZ@caracal> <CACf3dPnNWfayhynFPtBiNPnUiipsZ45vjqZvy-TD-hd7LPgUSQ@mail.gmail.com> <54295019.6010707@gmx.de> <54298F49.8000708@gmail.com> <5429A27F.1040906@gmx.de> <542A6562.80902@gmail.com> <542A80D4.3050504@gmx.de> <542A8770.7060104@gmx.de>
From: "'John E. Clifford' via lojban" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <542A8770.7060104@gmx.de>
Message-Id: <980FE8B2-F165-48EB-A2A9-997208C95201@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 13:37:59 +0200
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam_score: -0.5
X-Spam_score_int: -4
X-Spam_bar: /

Well, this spoils my fun somewhat, since I just finished offline a piece th=
at began "The big mistake is taking {le} to be like {lo} rather than like {=
la}, though Logjam history and pedagogy force that view.".  The logical for=
m of {le broda cu brode} is Fa, where're 'a' is a constant term, with no in=
ternal structure.  Notice that, like {la .broda. brode} we cannot infer tha=
t some broda is a brode or that the referent is a broda or even that there =
is a broda, all  of which follow immediately from .{lo broda cu brode}.  Wh=
atever connections there may be between the predicate used and the thing re=
ferred to are matters of psychology or sociology but not of Logic.  I don't=
 mean that {le} collapses to {la} (or conversely), since the connection bet=
ween predicate and object are typically different in the two cases and the =
difference may be practically important in figuring out what is referred to=
 6but, of course, it may also not help at all).  The point is that once we =
turn from trying to figure just how {le} is different from {lo} -- the poin=
t of this discussion -- to how it differs from {la}, we can do a bit more u=
seful work with a lot less quibbling (I.e., do some science rather than Phi=
losophy).

Sent from my iPad

On Sep 30, 2014, at 12:35, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:

> mi pu cusku di'e
>> As I'm not a {le}-user myself, I don't think I'm going to try to put my
>> definition on it. Let the {le}-users define what it means.
>=20
> Although, if {le} is defined as a name, then the other definition I showe=
d is available to define {lo}. Then there would at least be a much clearer =
difference between the two gadri. And maybe it would make PC happy, too: {l=
e} is a name, and {lo} takes the maximal bunch of brodas :)
>=20
> mi'e la selpa'i mu'o
>=20
> --=20
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups=
 "lojban" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an=
 email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.