From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri May 12 17:43:47 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 12 May 2006 17:43:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FeiEC-0007fI-K8 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 12 May 2006 17:43:28 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.226]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FeiE9-0007f8-Lr for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 12 May 2006 17:43:28 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 67so728632wri for ; Fri, 12 May 2006 17:43:24 -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=Bp0dGIRnTsw2gRDMjdxk2t7FVd+Sapj3MiCNY43y2F91diuAC8qifJSfIrdhbFKK9KH70lBc5OgBJ33Vq3oItpcwMIy9pR1Vk7UeYA9Dpf9RGfaxqI/YtyTy/be4WWz4u7TmvlJ0T6OFQs60oU/qHQllKNRj+EyoOv95a8znJE8= Received: by 10.54.121.19 with SMTP id t19mr2914663wrc; Fri, 12 May 2006 17:43:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.126.17 with HTTP; Fri, 12 May 2006 17:43:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560605121743p2fec3c21o6296fb8db5fdb87e@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 21:43:24 -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: <925d17560605111827s5c1ee336u524d2a08555bd739@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605120641y12e1cfb7ydb80fad3d465bb1a@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605121557l1341cd6dn57fab88b8c956e80@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605121704y72a68ee6u9cd709c3cc8b1409@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11527 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 5/12/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > What if the relevant bears that we've been talking about for the last > hour are some specific 20 bears, 2 of which are in the cage? (You > strongly suspect that there are more than these 2 bears in the cage.) If you strongly suspect that there are more than these 2 bears in the cage, then {ro} would definitely include them. > {__ ro cribe poi nenri le va selri'u} would say "all of the (those 20 > relevant) bears that are in the cage (there are 2)" - but it doesn't > say what I want to say - all of the bears in the cage, whatever number > there is in there, context aside. No, it wouldn't say that. It would refer to anything that could relevantly be said to be a bear in the cage, and any other bear in the cage besides the ones we've been talking about before can certainly be relevantly said to be a bear in the cage from what you are saying. > The utility of my inner {ro} would be that the listener wouldn't need > to consider context (like those 20 relevant bears), nor be confused by > it where it works against what the speaker is saying (like when I want > to talk about all and potentially not-currently-relevant bears that > are in the cage). If you want to talk about them, and they are bears, then they can relevantly be said to be bears. Your wanting to talk about them automatically makes them relevant to the discourse. If your audience, for whatever reason, is not on your same page, you have to bring them there in order to be able to communicate effectively. There is no universally fixed referent of "bears in that cage" that can be relied on for every possible context ever. > Also, what is the difference between your {L_ cribe}, and your {L_ ro cribe}? {ro} emphasizes that none can be left out. For instance, in the example I gave before about the quotas: "All bears killed by people, including emergency kills, illegal kills, subsistence, and sport hunting must be accounted for under the quota", the "all" is important: each and every bear must be accounted for. It is also fairly clear from just that single sentence that it does not refer to all bears killed by people ever and anywhere, but if you read the whole document where the sentence comes from it is even more clear that it's about grizzly bears in the Gwich'in Settlement Area, (and obviously not concerned about killings in that area before the agreement came into effect, whenever that was). I would certainly use {ro} in a Lojban translation of that. 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.