From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Jul 28 09:58:31 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:58:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MVq0U-0005Iz-RA for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:58:31 -0700 Received: from mail-pz0-f201.google.com ([209.85.222.201]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MVq0Q-0005Hl-Tt for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:58:30 -0700 Received: by pzk39 with SMTP id 39so121073pzk.28 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:58:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=qYIFkLp5M2Jz6ckbGxrgaN8clJ2rhy8Ijy0vkrJc+dw=; b=btJbQ8k0qBPlO3zlf2hy7v3Fy14WJrEgX7kSdHOwDqRI0+EQArgv4q29A3SMCPIIKp oI3AIlFXXm8wIQ62GcB7mAfnw/6WMr76hNZQuxQpPmjD6zlhCgb20ZBbM02sduLkBMRi IBXAxOie5HAw818WgMA1hHULhCvmYeaAufqgE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=m41cmiCV7EZSOFDkbmaezts19z5mKFBcHfszSlqLk9c0+6yxEqwiv3jtZqJOn59FuU mhAWEj88gBeFm0lDhJ5QyMW43NmOqGQAcMXal2x/OcyMdLQrQ3R57mYi3X98Kab8Vj1W yWk2xG58tQEmn/XFEiDTVAdAfYPJFiNf+x0Lc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.72.83 with SMTP id l19mr4894454vcj.72.1248800300184; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:58:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <253195.41523.qm@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <200907280045.44937.phma@phma.optus.nu> <96f789a60907280533n45388b3dg4d9e7596e5c1e541@mail.gmail.com> <200907280859.09514.phma@phma.optus.nu> <96f789a60907280709h7960f3fftc2c9a5a083360ed2@mail.gmail.com> <664922.39992.qm@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5715b9300907280903t63cd372du13da398fe2e4b7ac@mail.gmail.com> <253195.41523.qm@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 12:58:19 -0400 Message-ID: <5715b9300907280958q79095c93u319f9ec1aaf0c6be@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: elliptical sentences From: Luke Bergen To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e647575649b8b7046fc6fac5 X-archive-position: 15824 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --0016e647575649b8b7046fc6fac5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ~shrugs~ {lo gerku poi gerku}? - Luke Bergen On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:16 PM, John E Clifford wrote: > Oh my, it is hat bad. What now serves the purpose of veridical 'le', > 'something(s) that actually are ...'? > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Luke Bergen > *To:* lojban-list@lojban.org > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 28, 2009 11:03:48 AM > *Subject:* [lojban] Re: elliptical sentences > > if I'm remembering correctly, under xorlo {lo} means something like "having > something to do with", with no implications of actual existence, whether it > is in the speakers mind only, or whether it _really is_ a specific instance > of whatever it is that you're talking about. > > Whereas {le} means that you have a specific thing in mind although I don't > believe it makes any truth claims about whether or not it _really is_. So > "le gerku" would mean "I have an actual thing in mind that I'm calling 'dog' > " while "lo gerku" would mean "there is something that I'm choosing to refer > to as 'dog' ". > > Did I get that right? It's taken me forever to really get the hang of > lo/le. > > - Luke Bergen > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:57 AM, John E Clifford wrote: > >> Oh dar God, what has 'lo' become now >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Michael Turniansky >> *To:* lojban-list@lojban.org >> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 28, 2009 9:09:29 AM >> *Subject:* [lojban] Re: elliptical sentences >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Pierre Abbat wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday 28 July 2009 08:33:56 Michael Turniansky wrote: >>> > Huh? Am I missing something here? What's elliptical about it? >>> > --gejyspa >>> >>> The complete statement would be "The genes for seeing red and green are >>> on the >>> X chromosome; the gene for seeing blue is on the 7th chromosome". The >>> gene >>> for seeing red isn't red, so calling it "lo xunre" isn't literally right. >>> Do >>> I have to say at least "lo xunre co'e"? >>> >> >> >> Ah, now I understand, and further understand why you mentioned "jgina" >> in your first message. Taken completely out of context, I had no idea what >> the English sentence meant. I thought you were just talking about abstract >> things... well, let's see.. you could certainly get away with saying "le" >> rather than "lo" since even in xorlo there's no implication that it's >> actually colored that way. >> >> --gy >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > --0016e647575649b8b7046fc6fac5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ~shrugs~ {lo gerku poi gerku}?

- Luke Bergen


On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:16 PM, John E= Clifford <kal= i9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
Oh my, it is hat bad. =A0What now ser= ves the purpose of veridical 'le', 'something(s) that actually = are ...'?

From: Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com&g= t;

To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 28,= 2009 11:03:48 AM

Subject: [lojban] Re: = elliptical sentences

if I'm remembering correctly, under xorlo {lo} means something like &qu= ot;having something to do with", with no implications of actual existe= nce, whether it is in the speakers mind only, or whether it _really is_ a s= pecific instance of whatever it is that you're talking about.

Whereas {le} means that you have a specific thing in mind although I do= n't believe it makes any truth claims about whether or not it _really i= s_.=A0 So "le gerku" would mean "I have an actual thing in m= ind that I'm calling 'dog' " while "lo gerku" wo= uld mean "there is something that I'm choosing to refer to as '= ;dog' ".

Did I get that right?=A0 It's taken me forever to really get the ha= ng of lo/le.

- Luke Bergen


On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:57 AM, John E= Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:<= br>
Oh dar God, what has 'lo'= become now

From: Michael Turniansky <mturniansk= y@gmail.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.o= rg
Sent: Tuesday, J= uly 28, 2009 9:09:29 AM
Subject: [lojban] Re: elli= ptical sentences



On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Pierre = Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 08:33:56 Michael Turniansky wrote:
> =A0 Huh? =A0Am I missing something here? =A0What's elliptical abou= t it?
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 --gejyspa

The complete statement would be "The genes for seeing red and gr= een are on the
X chromosome; the gene for seeing blue is on the 7th chromosome". The = gene
for seeing red isn't red, so calling it "lo xunre" isn't = literally right. Do
I have to say at least "lo xunre co'e"?


=A0=A0 Ah, now I= understand, and further understand why you mentioned "jgina" in = your first message.=A0 Taken completely out of context, I had no idea what = the English sentence meant.=A0 I thought you were just talking about abstra= ct things...=A0 well, let's see.. you could certainly get away with say= ing "le" rather than "lo" since even in xorlo there'= ;s no implication that it's actually colored that way.

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 --gy



=A0





--0016e647575649b8b7046fc6fac5-- 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.