From sentto-44114-14578-1025768310-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Thu Jul 04 00:39:03 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 04 Jul 2002 00:39:03 z (PDT) Received: from n3.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.86]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17Q1Cg-0006A8-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 00:39:02 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-14578-1025768310-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.198] by n3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Jul 2002 07:38:31 -0000 X-Sender: gordon.dyke@bluewin.ch X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 4 Jul 2002 07:38:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 62640 invoked from network); 4 Jul 2002 07:38:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Jul 2002 07:38:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta11n.bluewin.ch) (195.186.1.211) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Jul 2002 07:38:30 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (62.202.160.227) by mta11n.bluewin.ch (Bluewin AG 6.0.053) id 3D0EE29700281698 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 09:38:28 +0200 Message-ID: <004d01c2232d$fa0187e0$e3a0ca3e@oemcomputer> To: "jboste" References: <17f.a91c11b.2a54c6a2@aol.com> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 From: "G. Dyke" X-Yahoo-Profile: gregvdyke MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 09:39:08 +0200 Subject: Re: [lojban] pro-sumti question Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 108 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: gordon.dyke@bluewin.ch Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list This an issue that (although solvable) I feel might be a likely candidate for an experimental cmavo (compared with other experimental cmavo which definately don't _need_ to exist. For that apples and oranges case a few weeks ago: I've had wanted to say something of the type: le ni [apples] (kei) le ni [oranges] (kei) [both of which] no'u su'o pa cu sumji li 12 we need a cmavo which will group sumti together in much le same way as vu'o groups logically connected sumti together. we could then have: le gerku le mlatu xu'o goi ko'a cu jersi... damn! that would break the grammar completely. Or maybe a pro-sumti which refers to le go'i .e le se go'i .e le te go'i etc. Greg ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 11:29 PM Subject: Re: [lojban] pro-sumti question > In a message dated 7/3/2002 4:10:29 PM Central Daylight Time, > lojban-out@lojban.org writes: > > > > I'm fine with context resolving those particular issues. I don't > > think _all_ the pro-sumti approaches can be realistically unambiguous > > (long live ra and ru). "le remei" seems like the best solution > > mentioned. The unbounded ko'a approach seems semi-dangerous to me, > > as it could damage the intended unambiguity of selma'o ko'a things. > > I'd rather munge "ru" than ko'a stuff (and that seems unneccesary > > with just "le remei"). > > > > Hell, they can't even be theoretically unambiguous except for a few special > cases. The issue here is whether they can reasonably be expected to get the > hearer to the right thing(s in this case). In this case we do not have any > dyads mentioned so far (in the little context we have) nor do we have two > individuals explicitly mentioned -- merely some number of dogs and some > number of cats. Can the hearer -- will the hearer likely -- put all of this > together to work out that the number is 1 in each case and that we are now > speaking of the two referents together? How can we help him? Of course, > later context may do it-- "the dog more than the cat," say, added on to the > problem sentence:{ le gerku cu zmadu le mlatu le du'u ce'u tatpi}. But can > we do something at the pronoun itself? I am not clear what was the matter > with {ri e ra}, which is almost unambiguous -- as close as we are likely to > get, anyhow -- and as short as most suggestions. > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Will You Find True Love? Will You Meet the One? Free Love Reading by phone! http://us.click.yahoo.com/ztNCyD/zDLEAA/Ey.GAA/GSaulB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/