From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Jul 11 09:06:38 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:06:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0Kkc-00057u-CX for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:06:18 -0700 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.178]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0Kka-00057m-Pv for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:06:18 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id d42so3881390pyd for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:06:13 -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=eMetutDvj2fHT9Erz4ELQc23b4rVEUk5po/Xzhbz2p5yNrjzitPQ/w56L5+3f84mqGa0+UEQAFcbnmagpAPm6afvkgq0eRTETwaNPk4/3Vs/w5wuv8YMJeAK8FIrR9g2ED1Nn+e15H2Zv6sf+VQLPjnFPfqI50RYNAm69nqI3/w= Received: by 10.35.99.14 with SMTP id b14mr6814167pym; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.14.17 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560607110906x64a38da3i4a5dc464b0469ca@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:06:13 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: <20060711154654.99785.qmail@web81315.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060711154654.99785.qmail@web81315.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 12102 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 7/11/06, John E Clifford wrote: > Incidentally (well, not really), when we get done with > all the xplanation it wills till turn out that the two ways of talking are equivalent, that for > every sentence of one there is another sentence (often outwardly identical)that is true in exactly > the same situations (necessarily). I'd be interested to see how you handle the sentence: lo tadni cu dasni lo mapku gi'e sruri le dinju without doing away with mass entities. (I certainly agree that the two ways of explaining {lu'o lo tadni cu sruri le dinju} are equivalent, but for me at least it is easier to say that the slot marker for non-distributivity, {lu'o}, is not obligatory than any explanation that introduces mass entities.) 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.