From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat May 06 15:31:42 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 06 May 2006 15:31:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcVJ6-0003Hm-Lt for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 06 May 2006 15:31:24 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.231]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcVJ3-0003Hc-Q2 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 06 May 2006 15:31:24 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i13so832874wra for ; Sat, 06 May 2006 15:31:18 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=qzJe9qVpQH8ih5vHcYc3d5R7xE5uRT2XTK1CuOMH7dlMg9FbGNrq8Tm9COmUuJilsHTpJ7T89ptthZUBkAlIfyzGSlDep9D887OOSEOAPpjPD3L2n51ChgprYWr9t8C3L6bGpWAJx7pjhsTvYkjiukReSF1fkULToX/ugCVBGow= Received: by 10.54.67.2 with SMTP id p2mr705983wra; Sat, 06 May 2006 15:31:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.126.18 with HTTP; Sat, 6 May 2006 15:31:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560605061531j68fc5d28h65b798fa9eda5703@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 19:31:18 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <925d17560605051356y14c8bc45xf602f0e8189b1d5e@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605051745m294b69c7m645ccc5cf61d037f@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605051949x4e9558c7oa69d3c999bc17680@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605060934q5a2b6172t6f3826feae787599@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11414 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 5/6/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > > {ro lo cribe cu citka ro lo ro jbari pe mi} - "(some specific) bears > > > ate (, specifically,) all my berries" > > > > "Each bear eats each of all my berries" > > Yes. But by my definition, it would not mean "Each bear of all bears > ate...", but rather "Each bear of some number of bears ate...". I'm > not sure which you meant. Neither. I meant just "each bear eats ...". "Each of all bears" would have to be {ro lo ro cribe} and "each of some bears" would have to be {ro lo su'o cribe}. {lo} by itself does not contain any hidden {ro} or {su'o}. > > > Two questions before I can give a better explanation: > > > > > > What is the difference between {ro lo ro cribe} and {ro le ro cribe} > > > by your definition? > > > > ro lo ro cribe = each of all bears > > ro le ro cribe = each of all the bears (i.e. each of the bears I'm > > talking about) > > This is expressed better by: > > ro lo ro cribe = each of all bears > ro lo cribe = each of all the bears (i.e. each of the bears I'm talking about) For the second one I only get "each bear". > ro lo ci cribe = each of the three bears (i.e. each of the three bears > I'm talking about) I get "each of three bears", not necessarily about specific bears. > Just don't default the inner quantifier, or let context override the > default (and if context overrides the default, then just don't default > it). Or is there some reason that the inner quantifier is being > defaulted? I think that this defaulting is an artifact from when {lo > ci} meant that there were three in the universe, and is no longer > appropriate. Where am I defaulting the inner quentifier? On the contrary, I am not introducing any quantifiers that are not made explicit. The paradigm goes something like this: lo: converts a selbri into a sumti le: lo + specificity loi: lo + nondistributivity lei: lo + specificity + nondistributivity Footnote: The feature of specificity brings with it a relaxation on the need to take the selbri meaning as veridical, moving towards the extreme of names where reference is all that survives and meaning is discarded. This is only a footnote! It should not be taken as the definitory property of {le}, which is specificity. No quantifiers, inner or outer, are implicit. > > > How would you say "I mean every last bear in the universe", keeping in > > > mind that {le pa cribe} would not say anything about the amount of > > > bears in the universe? > > > > ro cribe poi zasti bu'u lo munje = each bear that exists in the universe > > Heh, yes indeed, though it was not what I was expecting. Would {lo ro > cribe}, qualified by time (and space?) work also? For bringing images about the whole universe? I don't think so. I don't think {lo ro bear} is any more precise than "all bears" in English. mu'o mi'e xorxes To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.