From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri May 12 18:50:41 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 12 May 2006 18:50:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FejGx-0000DN-2L for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 12 May 2006 18:50:23 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.231]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FejGu-0000DE-Rp for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 12 May 2006 18:50:22 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 67so733929wri for ; Fri, 12 May 2006 18:50:19 -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=MXfyDrVGh0vyuxTXKGUHorIX866W5om0N25/rf6W92fjp4G0FDrtJqMBWylYjJk4MWfH6Pi3OSPx7FVgdP4rYvSMM7sKpegaUx+p4qf6gQED0S7myYC9VLdv5/W/ICOZph0d54FNmxatNnphng6HQaDmyWY6AOgM+huxz9OpAcA= Received: by 10.54.80.18 with SMTP id d18mr397605wrb; Fri, 12 May 2006 18:50:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.126.17 with HTTP; Fri, 12 May 2006 18:50:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560605121850q38d49a3qaae649a9f6012e2b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 22:50:19 -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: <925d17560605120641y12e1cfb7ydb80fad3d465bb1a@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605121557l1341cd6dn57fab88b8c956e80@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605121704y72a68ee6u9cd709c3cc8b1409@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605121743p2fec3c21o6296fb8db5fdb87e@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11529 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: > On 5/12/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > 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. > > We havn't been talking about those bears before. This is the whole point. New relevant referents can and are constanly introduced in any conversation. "Relevant" does not mean "we've been talking about it". I don't really see what the problem is. If we've been talking about twenty bears and now you want to talk about other bears as well, and you think I might be fixated on the twenty for some reason, then say something like: "Now, taking into account not just the twenty bears that we've been talking about but other bears as well, ..." I don't think such extreme measures are called for very often, but they are always available. > > There is no universally fixed referent of "bears > > in that cage" that can be relied on for every possible context ever. > > Yes, there is: "all the bears in that cage now". How is this even > remotely ambiguous? I wouldn't say it's ambiguous. But I would say that every expression can eventually have different referents in different contexts. For example: "All the bears now in that cage are eating." (Probably the most common referent.) "If all the monkies in that cage were bears, then all the bears now in that cage would outnumber the rabbits." (A very odd referent.) And in any case, I don't know what your point is here. Even if "all the bears in that cage" would always and under all possible circumstances have one and the same referent, that wouldn't change the fact that countless other {lo ro broda} forms have more easily varying referents with context. > So you're saing that {L_ cribe} defaults to {L_ su'o cribe}, "some > relevant bears"? No, I oppose default quantifiers. I don't take {lo cribe} to have any implicit inner or outer quantifier. Inner {su'o} may look very harmless, but it can have many connotations that I don't really care for. I'm happier with no quantifier expressed meaning no quantifier implied. 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.