From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu May 19 15:32:35 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 19 May 2005 15:32:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DYtZ5-000516-4e for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 19 May 2005 15:32:27 -0700 Received: from zproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.162.192]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DYtZ1-00050e-L5 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 19 May 2005 15:32:27 -0700 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 13so721105nzp for ; Thu, 19 May 2005 15:31:52 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=STXSLfS39FjGSwSamV/NuVmsJDwhOw/0C7S/1aBQ1FRMjjDgbBpdIHTc0dFPcTqzDucK3guuUusju0fStImI0GGgZCs9zqb6u57iBRi6jLXgGNSAMqXVYN7fPUmpJ3ESTcWIbQqKX71J68ufZgnoV5UzJheJxumDs/MOtSFQlsY= Received: by 10.36.24.7 with SMTP id 7mr695567nzx; Thu, 19 May 2005 15:31:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.66.18 with HTTP; Thu, 19 May 2005 15:31:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <737b61f3050519153122fcdfcc@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 17:31:52 -0500 From: Chris Capel To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: {le} and {lo}. In-Reply-To: <20050519174701.42416.qmail@web81306.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <20050519174701.42416.qmail@web81306.mail.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 9983 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: pdf23ds@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 5/19/05, John E Clifford wrote: > > --- Chris Capel wrote: > > Now, I believe that what Opi Lauma said would > > have been more true > > before your revised BPFK definition of {lo}, > > right? But the BPFK has > > revised {lo} to be a generic article instead of > > whatever it was > > supposed to be before. So Complete Lojban > > Language, and Lojban for > > Beginners, are both out of date in this > > respect. (Particularly, I > > think the section in LFB on lV, lVi, and lV'i > > is particularly > > confusing and unhelpful, especially now.) > > > This is not the place to get into {lo} > discussions again. The xorlo, even were it > consistent, would change the way one talked about > {lo} very little and the way one used it scarcely > at all (but those rare cases are doozies). > Proceed as before and, until you get into > metaphysical discussions (and an occasional > intensional context), you will do just fine with > the old version (it was always generic, it just > is we used to know what that meant). I'm not particularly interested in discussing the intricacies of the changes to {lo}. But I do know that they struck me as making me much more likely to use the article, and also they particularly affect the accuracy and usefulness of LFB 4.2[1] (especially regarding loi). So the changes don't strike me as un-noteworthy as you would have them be, and I think that Opi Lauma in particular seems to have been somewhat confused by the changes. His previous[2] statement would be accurate under the old system, as I understand. I also found it odd that Jorge wouldn't mention the reason Opi's current understanding was wrong--that xorlo changed the behavior of the inner quantifier of {lo}. Chris Capel [1] http://ptolemy.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/lojbanbrochure/lessons/less4articles.html [2] Opi Lauma said: > About {lo}. Is it right that {lo gerku} = {le N > gerku}, where N is a number of all {gerku} in the > world? -- "What is it like to be a bat? What is it like to bat a bee? What is it like to be a bee being batted? What is it like to be a batted bee?" -- The Mind's I (Hofstadter, Dennet)