From robin@bilkent.edu.tr Tue Jul 22 00:26:58 2003
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:26:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from manyas.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr ([139.179.30.24])
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 19erXt-0000km-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:26:49 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by manyas.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 969DE320F5
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 10:26:14 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from bilkent.edu.tr (ppp106.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr [139.179.111.106])
	by manyas.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4A9032017
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 10:26:12 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <3F1CE8E8.5050000@bilkent.edu.tr>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 10:34:00 +0300
From: Robin Turner <robin@bilkent.edu.tr>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030701
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, tr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: le du
References: <20030721180838.U72693-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> <00df01c34fd9$2cf11340$55350751@oemcomputer> <20030722005320.GA61835@allusion.net>
In-Reply-To: <20030722005320.GA61835@allusion.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS snapshot-20020531
X-archive-position: 5950
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: robin@bilkent.edu.tr
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

Jordan DeLong wrote:
> 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?
>>
>>le du cu frili
>>
>>-- 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).
> 
I can't see the point in using zo'e in the first place - if it's 
obvious, leave it blank.

robin.tr

-- 
"A strategy is still being formulated."

Robin Turner
IDMYO
Bilkent Univeritesi
Ankara 06533
Turkey

www.bilkent.edu.tr/~robin