From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Thu Dec 17 19:53:29 1992 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:58:43 -0500 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1877; Thu, 17 Dec 92 14:58:10 EST Received: from CUVMB.BITNET by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 9656; Thu, 17 Dec 92 14:57:27 EST Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:53:29 +0000 Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Subject: Re: TECH: new ZAhO suggestion X-To: lojban@cuvma.BITNET To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: (Your message of Mon, 14 Dec 92 17:03:26 GMT.) Status: O X-Status: Message-ID: > ta'o thanks for the comments And - I just about understand them, if I > really put my mind to it; but I don't know what you were intending to > ask/suggest/propose by them. This is politely put! What I was suggesting was that there is a need (which may already be satisfied by some existing lojban locution) to refer to some entity that may be a part of some larger entity. So, for example, when stating one's current age one might say "my life has a duration of (at least) 40 years", without implying that one dies at the age of 40. This relates to John Cowan and the goat's legs. Apparently, in lojban "This goat has 2 legs" means it has exactly 2 legs: as we noted, it would be nice to be able to say "this goat has at least 2 legs". Note that a translation of "at least" is not in itself sufficient: if one were exactly 40 ten years ago, and wished to state this, it would not be enough to say "10 years ago I had a duration of at least 40 years". I presume that it is possible to refer to all or part of some object, set, event or whatever. I am suggesting the need for a way to refer to some object/set/event/... without specifiying whether one is referring to its entirety or only to part of it. ---- And.