From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri May 27 16:45:45 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 27 May 2005 16:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50)
	id 1DboWF-0005fx-0s
	for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 27 May 2005 16:45:35 -0700
Received: from web81303.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.78])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.50)
	id 1DboWB-0005fp-Bl
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 27 May 2005 16:45:34 -0700
Message-ID: <20050527234644.37077.qmail@web81303.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [68.88.37.184] by web81303.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 27 May 2005 16:46:44 PDT
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 16:46:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [lojban] Re: Again {lo}.
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: 6667
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
X-archive-position: 10067
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

Sorry, I meant to say, "means at least."
Is it really true that {lo} cannot be used in
singular claims, only in general ones?  This
would mean that {lo} is not the generic article
contrasting with {le}, but some very special
article, with very limited utility.  It would not
be the case then that it meant what English "a"
means, a large part of which is singular.  And
this most common usage would now have the more
complex form {su'o lo}.  I am afraid I don't see
the motivation for this change: what does it get
you that the older forms did not?
  
-- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/27/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Does this mean what I and Robin TR said is
> not
> > true of {lo gerku}?
> 
> But you two said different things.
> 
> Robin.tr said: "{lo gerku cu pendo lo remna}
> means that 
> there is at least one dog, such that it is a
> friend to at least 
> one human, which is not what we want here."
> 
> pc said: "Surely, if no dog is a friend of any
> man, then
> {le gerku cu xagai pendo lo remna} is false, so
> it does 
> indeed entail Robin Turk's claimed reading."
> 
> But the problem with Robin.tr's statement was
> not
> what {lo gerku cu pendo lo remna} _entails_ but
> rather
> what it _means_ in full. The question was
> whether or not it is 
> what we want here to translate "the dog is
> man's best friend".
> 
> Robin.tr is quite correct that {su'o lo gerku
> cu xagrai pendo
> su'o lo remna} is a bad translation of "the dog
> is man's 
> best friend", even if the latter entails the
> former.
> 
> Robin.tr was assuming that {lo gerku cu xagrai
> pendo
> lo remna} = {su'o lo gerku cu xagrai pendo su'o
> lo remna}.
> (Not just entails but completely equivalent.)
> 
> Robin.ca correctly pointed out that with the
> BPFK understanding
> of {lo}, {lo gerku cu xagrai pendo lo remna} is
> not the same
> thing as {su'o lo gerku cu xagrai pendo su'o lo
> remna}, and that
> the former, (but not the latter) is a good
> translation of
> "the dog is man's best friend".
> 
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
> 
> 
> 
>