From fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com Mon Jul 21 17:43:09 2003
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cs24349-133.austin.rr.com
	([24.243.49.133] helo=cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ident=root)
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 19elF6-0004oj-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:43:00 -0700
Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6M0rKxN061970
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:53:21 -0500 (CDT)
	(envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com)
Received: (from fracture@localhost)
	by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8/Submit) id h6M0rKuR061969
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:53:20 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:53:20 -0500
From: Jordan DeLong <fracture@allusion.net>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: le du (was: use of ko'a)
Message-ID: <20030722005320.GA61835@allusion.net>
References: <20030721180838.U72693-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> <00df01c34fd9$2cf11340$55350751@oemcomputer>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5mCyUwZo2JvN/JJP"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <00df01c34fd9$2cf11340$55350751@oemcomputer>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-archive-position: 5949
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list


--5mCyUwZo2JvN/JJP
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 11:41:02PM +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> xod:
> > > > > {le du} is a perfectly acceptable translation of "they". The
> question
> > > is:
> > > > > is unbound ko'a meaningless, or is it equivalent to {le du}.
> > > >
> > > > How do you use le du?
> > >
> > > As a specific reference without any identificatory description -- much
> like
> > > English "them".
> >
> > Could you give an example text in Lojban?
>=20
> le du cu frili
>=20
> -- where "le du" might here refer to the act of giving an example text in
> Lojban.

How does {le du} (something like the thing which I describe as being
equal to some thing(s) (which are obviously itself, because they
are equal to it...)) differ from {le co'e}?

(That is, aside from being more esoteric).

It seems to me like they are the same, except that {le co'e} is
more "honest" (for lack of a better word).

Of course, in *real* usage, in a case where the referent wasn't
recently mentioned, you'd probably say "zo'e".  (If it were mentioned,
you'd use zo'e or ri/ra/ru/lerfu).

--=20
Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
                                     sei la mark. tuen. cusku

--5mCyUwZo2JvN/JJP
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE/HIsADrrilS51AZ8RAtR6AKDAkr2RvYVI6PypMs6+mpnL60gU3gCfZUlS
FoI43UOyKzVgdJ4G7+J0CZE=
=cwKN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--5mCyUwZo2JvN/JJP--