From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat Jun 03 11:03:12 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 03 Jun 2006 11:03:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FmaSc-00059w-32 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 11:02:54 -0700 Received: from web81310.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.126]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FmaSa-00059m-63 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 11:02:53 -0700 Received: (qmail 16798 invoked by uid 60001); 3 Jun 2006 18:02:50 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=vjqI7Be3JEri5htjc6Ni8+U9NO1etH3Bia4xrxYbVRHAbuXGuWIgUiF20URRZZw9NJWmxvGEQUyOsVz9vGaP/4DKX0BKpbzKq12dTJK26feChH8EkDL0wpg+SMrTfXLLivS06n7uSPQaPYieKWMc1i0A3ZehZXLTFn9HxQGEJlY= ; Message-ID: <20060603180250.16796.qmail@web81310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.237.215.142] by web81310.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 11:02:50 PDT Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 11:02:50 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <925d17560606031004w32e6030bmdfa696123a99ed2e@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-archive-position: 11715 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list As you may recall, my suggestion mirrors the English for "individually" and "collectively" (or "together"), attaching as convenient to sumti or predicate place (so, I suppose that UI is about the only selmaho that will work -- unless we invent a new one). The point of using {lu'o} and the like is that they would have no use in the mildly revised system and so could be used for something else -- in this case something related, even. I think this would have a minimal effect on old text, since 1) {lu'o} and the like have scarcely ever been used and 2) the old forms are legitmate under the new dispensation and have the same meaning (or what now corresponds to the old meaning). These last two claims are impressionistic, so correct them if they are wrong. --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 6/3/06, John E Clifford > wrote: > > --- Maxim Katcharov > > > > > > Use {lu'o} (or whatever) after a {gi'e} > in > > > the same transient manner > > > > > in which English occasionally uses > > > "together". There are many other > > > > > solutions. > > > > Quite aside from the other points, this > > suggestion is not without merit, since we > need > > some such temporary mode indicators (I > suppose > > "temporary" is redundant, since modes are > only > > for one place on one predicate at a time). > > I suspect moving the word {lu'o} out of selma'o > LAhE and into, say, > selma'o UI, is totally out of the question at > this stage, so whatever > the merits of the suggestion for a > distributivity marker on the selbri, > you can bet from the start that it won't fly if > you present it in terms > of that move. Better introduce a new word for > it. (That's my advice, > anyway.) > > As for the suggestion itself, the problem is > that a selbri can have > more than one argument, so it is not enough to > have a marker that > says "this selbri is non-distributive", you > need a marker that says > "this selbri is non-distributive for its n-th > argument". Unless you want > to say something like "this selbri is > non-distributive for at least one > of its arguments, use context to figure out > which one(s)" or "this selbri > is non-distributive for its first argument" > (given that that is likely to be > the one used most frequently). > > 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. > > 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.