From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Jun 28 13:35:13 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:35:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FvgkS-0003O5-Br for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:34:56 -0700 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.183]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FvgkQ-0003Nx-6G for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:34:56 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id b36so1817701pyb for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:34:52 -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=HaxP9ljbnkEBxelkrXLzngLedKXJZtzX/EL7vt4372G/pa22F38nuMqpSnSdit9X5CN1cEseOrVtYxf9WP/Co3l/GLNRvXy4zKnU8dEGIaBwNiMzWV/5hiz9JlLJToCkDSnL3alKeNt0NGvgxPrsLmjW5/w3xTqfWzlQyLnrPBI= Received: by 10.35.127.15 with SMTP id e15mr611613pyn; Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:34:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.14.17 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:34:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560606281334s8b52a3cmce451a8ecaf96bc3@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:34:50 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Once again about le and lo In-Reply-To: <44A2C9D1.1000807@mail.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <44A2C9D1.1000807@mail.ru> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 11849 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 6/28/06, Dmitry wrote: > Please help me to check myself. > > Assume following two utterances: > 1) .i lo ratcu cu citka le cirla > 2) .i le ratcu cu citka le cirla .ije ra ratcu > > Are (1) and (2) equivalent? In (2) the speaker has some particular rat or rats in mind, in (1) there is no such indication. > Actually, before writing the message I thought that they are. But now, I > think it is not so, because of implicit quantifiers. > > Now consider following utterance > 3) .i su'o lo ratcu cu citka le cirla > > Is it equivalent to (2)? I believe, it should. (3) has no indication that the speaker has any particular rat in mind. Besides, if there were several rats that shared the cheese, (3) would be false, because it is not the case for any of the rats that it ate it by itself, but (1) and (2) would be fine. 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.