Message-Id: <m0qn5Sp-00005XC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 20 Sep 1994 09:40:36 -0400
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: any? (response to Desmond)
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  <199409200621.AA03083@access1.digex.net> from "Logical Language
              Group" at Sep 20, 94 02:21:25 am
Content-Length: 1440
Lines: 39

la lojbab. cusku di'e

> Ask [the ghost of] Shakespeare what he means by various passages in his plays.

And he will reply, "with maddening iteration" (Northrop Frye):

        I *meant* it to form part of the play!

> But how do you evaluate a story:
>
> "lo nanmu cu klama co jibni lo ninmu .i le nanmu cu cpedu le ninmu lenu
> kansa klama le dansu nunsalci"
>
> "A man goes near a woman.  And the man asks the woman to
> accompanyingly-go to the dance-celebration."

Colin has always argued that this is a misuse of "lo", and that "le" should
be used from the beginning.  If some other "le nanmu" or "le ninmu" are
possibly relevant, then we use the new "bi'u" (new info) discursive to
control for this.

> Now what do you make of this?  Is the first sentence inherently true
> because at least one man has at some time gone near a woman?  If so, it
> makes "lo" rather useless.

No, I don't think so, but for a different reason.  Since this sentence is
tenseless, it is claimed to be true at some specific but unstated time,
not merely at any time whatever.

> I think that there may indeed be a 'typing'
> going on here, and the 2nd sentence "le" is an instantiation that tells
> us that the first sentence WAS referring to a specific man and a
> specific woman.

Nah.  Too late now.  Use "le" throughout instead.

--
John Cowan              sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
                e'osai ko sarji la lojban.