From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sun May 29 15:11:27 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 29 May 2005 15:11:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DcW05-00035V-MM for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sun, 29 May 2005 15:11:17 -0700 Received: from manyas.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr ([139.179.30.24]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DcW01-00035M-SO for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 29 May 2005 15:11:17 -0700 Received: by manyas.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr (Postfix, from userid 72) id 627B226F64; Mon, 30 May 2005 01:12:43 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [139.179.111.107] (ppp107.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr [139.179.111.107]) by manyas.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91A9126F38 for ; Mon, 30 May 2005 01:12:42 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <429A3E55.4030502@bilkent.edu.tr> Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 01:12:37 +0300 From: robin User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050322) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Again {lo}. References: <20050528124359.37476.qmail@web81306.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20050528124359.37476.qmail@web81306.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) X-archive-position: 10086 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 John E Clifford wrote: > Unfortunately, it can be argued that {lo'e} means > something different from the generalization that > was intended using {lo}. Just what the > difference is is not too clear, though {le'e} > pretty clearly brings in a subjective factor > absent from the others. If we're talking about baseline {lo}, the difference is obvious. If I have understood xorlo correctly, the new {lo} makes no claims about what it precedes - it's the gadri equivalent of {pe}. In that case, the difference is simply that {lo'e} is more specific. In the baseline usage, {lo gerku cu pendu lo remna} means "There is at least one thing that is actually a dog, that is a friend to one thing that is actually a human." The proposed new usage gives us something like (in Pidgin Chinese-proverb style) "dog friend man." I rather like this, but it is (intentionally) vague. It's not a generalisation, since that would be "Most dogs are friends to most men." It *could* mean that, but it doesn't have to. Using {lo'e} is simply more precise. robin.tr -- "I think perhaps the most important problem is that we are trying to understand the fundamental workings of the universe via a language devised for telling one another where the best fruit is." -- Terry Pratchett Robin Turner IDMYO Bilkent Universitesi Ankara 06533 Turkey www.bilkent.edu.tr/~robin