From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat May 28 07:05:21 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 28 May 2005 07:05:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1Dc1w4-0000D2-RN for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 28 May 2005 07:05:09 -0700 Received: from web81304.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.79]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Dc1w0-0000Cg-9K for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 28 May 2005 07:05:08 -0700 Message-ID: <20050528140622.27130.qmail@web81304.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [68.88.37.184] by web81304.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 28 May 2005 07:06:22 PDT Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 07:06:22 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford 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: 10076 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 --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > > Well, without more context I would almost > certainly interpret it in the > adage sense, just as I would interpret a > tensless sentence out of > context in an atemporal sense. It requires a > much stronger context to > interpret it as "some dog will be, two days > from now and for a duration > of 37 minutes, best friend to some human." It > could eventually mean > that, but it's highly unlikely. > So it all comes down to style (in this particular case at least -- though the general claim about {lo} seems to be more). I automatically take unmarked cases as particular and past tense (maybe present). This habit, which in the case of {lo} was embodied in the old sense -- may account for our differences in the two readings: whether they are about all the critters and then be satisfied with chunks or about some of the critters and then require all of those.