Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qsbBd-00005XC; Wed, 5 Oct 94 20:35 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5932; Wed, 05 Oct 94 20:35:45 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 5929; Wed, 5 Oct 1994 20:35:45 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 4067; Wed, 5 Oct 1994 19:32:48 +0100 Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 13:50:01 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: admirers of 50% of symphonies X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1833 Lines: 48 > >> (1) Each admirer admires some but not necessarily each of this 50% > >> of symphonies > > > >lei neltce be su'o le re le zgikrsimfoni,a > >The admirers of at least one of the two of the symphonies. > > What would it mean if you changed the first "le" to "lo"? lei neltce be lo re le zgikrsimfoni,a The admirers of at least one of two of the symphonies. You are not being specific as to which two of the symphonies you're talking about. > Would that make > the count (2) of symphonies veridicial but still allow for loose use of the > word "symphony"? The veridicality of {lo} is not its main feature, and I think it is a mistake to insist so much with it. {lo} has to be veridical because it is non-specific. If you don't require veridicality, you lose all meaning because of the non-specificity. But you can't use veridicality to disringuish the meanings of {le} and {lo}. 99.9 % of the time {le} will also be veridical. Because of its specificity, you can allow for not quite veridicality and still convey meaning, but this IMHO is a secondary feature of {le}. The difference between {le} and {lo} is specificity. With {lo} you don't give any indication as to what are the referents that make the claim true. You only say that there are such referents. With {le}, you have those referents in mind, and if you are kind with your audience you will make sure it is clear to them too what are the referents. With {lo} you are making a general claim, with {le} you are talking about a particular situation. > Does the "le" in your original sentence allow for, say > "2000" to be meant by "re", if it's understood in context? Maybe, but that's not the main difference between the two claims. > >Didactic? I'm not didactic. > > No need to be defensive -- everyone here is polydactic. zo'o Or polydactyl maybe. Jorge