From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Mon Jul 21 09:06:19 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:06:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lmsmtp01.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.111]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19edAx-0001Re-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:06:11 -0700 Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-63-249.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.63.249]) by lmsmtp01.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AF9D1E797 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:05:38 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <007601c34fa1$f0d92f00$55350751@oemcomputer> From: "And Rosta" To: References: <0HID0000CLTCWA@mxout4.netvision.net.il> <20030721134231.GA57104@allusion.net><006801c34f8e$3fc2fec0$55350751@oemcomputer> Subject: [lojban] Re: use of ko'a Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:01:33 +0100 Organization: Livagian Consulate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-archive-position: 5937 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Adam Lopresto: > On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, And Rosta wrote: > > > Translate English "They went." I can see two ways: > > > > 1. ko'a klama > > 2. le du cu klama > > > > Neither uses anaphora, and I cannot see any way of using anaphora. > > Who went? "They" is anaphora, it's only meaningful in English when we've > already been talking about some group. It is only meaningful when the referent is accessible in the mutually manifest context. A common, but not the only, way for it to be accessible is for it to already have been talked about. {le du} is a perfectly acceptable translation of "they". The question is: is unbound ko'a meaningless, or is it equivalent to {le du}. > And if that's the case, there's nothing wrong with ra. I'm also curious > why you couldn't translate "They went." as > > 3. klama Because {klama} can quite plausibly mean "someone went" or, less plausibly, "everyone went". IOW, the meaning of {klama} is broader than the meaning of "They went". > which doesn't tell us a thing about who went, but neither does unbound ko'a. > If you're going to have to glork who ko'a is, then why don't you just use zo'e > the way it's intended? {zo'e} generalizes over all sumti, including quantified variables and zi'o; it is not restricted to specific referents. --And.