From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Sep 08 12:58:17 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:58:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ml6pV-000629-Eg for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:58:17 -0700 Received: from mail-yx0-f197.google.com ([209.85.210.197]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ml6pS-00061m-FQ for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:58:17 -0700 Received: by yxe35 with SMTP id 35so8961063yxe.2 for ; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:58:08 -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=/6tKBT9lZADZsrdBzvtKWJNW3Xab9wXjuGEbWpEioXw=; b=DdWVbLeLfJt+PMzwKEyB/0Rz6/TzSNBPopHLdRqyu3DK+NaMpHjiFwvBO8CRbc+Ecw UCGuPex0bQBIH5ZvzX7tRItxj+O0Dyv4U/uGOCuEUlBT6MokxGIVOTFURi59yPb+rLPQ cY/nlIHRcb9r1t4Rm7q80LL+3nmfS0/qV5wYM= 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=js8zxVFMzOPZ2kkM+BswywP4+0VVGZv2QvPMooQ61tXDVmrT9f3l2tWOooSRVk5hY9 Rd4grOKHhDBUvPqCfL5Utxc3o4uPhZpgr6NcKn6iDHacQAvsAsfbXg+kx9zVSyjLHB07 +TkF07ZiIvUrdKVWtDb8dhVcXHD/Ae8G3c30E= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.90.18.33 with SMTP id 33mr12210347agr.113.1252439887933; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:58:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <9ada8ecd0909081246o4780578fv89cffb0bc817fb18@mail.gmail.com> References: <9ada8ecd0909051425t78a046f3kddef2869e5c8e7a2@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560909060746n223ad9c7ic88894c3513a6ea1@mail.gmail.com> <9ada8ecd0909061401n35c37197j6ff4fac5b267fc5e@mail.gmail.com> <9ada8ecd0909061426r95b84efu76464f7327430f6c@mail.gmail.com> <395902.46727.qm@web50406.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <9ada8ecd0909061448p2eaa92ep19569f2b66793b76@mail.gmail.com> <386480.83513.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <9ada8ecd0909071709s5181e5d4r8e7803ac95581ad3@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560909080615r662b6fd5h376e2d330671e32f@mail.gmail.com> <9ada8ecd0909081246o4780578fv89cffb0bc817fb18@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 16:58:07 -0300 Message-ID: <925d17560909081258g11b9b88o37790e852cb7c83f@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: xorlo From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-archive-position: 16112 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 Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Squark Rabinovich wrote: > > I fail to see almost any difference between "tables" and "a bunch of > tables". Consider: "Tables are often made of wood." "A bunch of tables is often made of wood." "He makes tables for a living." "He makes a bunch of tables for a living." Do you think those mean the same thing? In any case, I don't think it's a problem to think that "lo jubme" can sometimes mean "a bunch o tables", as long as that doesn't lead you to expect that you can then quantify over bunches of tables to get "every bunch of tables", "three bunches of tables", and so on. Those are not the type of things that can be said with "lo jubme". > Perhaps the only difference is that "bunch" contains a stronger > implication of something uniting the tables together. In order to remove any > doubts, lets call it a "plurality of tables". As long as you don't then want to talk about "three pluralities of tables", there is no problem. "lo" only lets you quantify over tables. > Fellows, I'm afraid we are totally lost here, as far as xorlo is concerned. > Where are the authority people? Where is xorxe himself? 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.