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 m0qzxhs-00006tC; Wed, 26 Oct 94 04:03 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1853; Wed, 26 Oct 94 04:03:26 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1850; Wed, 26 Oct 1994 04:03:12 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2055; Wed, 26 Oct 1994 02:59:41 +0100 Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 11:11:30 -0600 Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: "any" X-To: lojban@cuvmb.bitnet To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 2018 Lines: 42 I've been trying to do more lojban writing lately, and I have found that opaqueness comes up more often than I would have thought, and again and again I've found myself wondering whether to use Jorge's xe'e, or a tanru, or what to do, and I've ended up using "lo" because it "felt right", despite my previous opinions on the matter (I more or less agreed with Jorge). I've been avoiding diving into the any/opaque debate, because it's complicated and I'm not sure I'm keeping up with it properly. Specifically, I've forgotten some of the arguments that convinced me that allowing "lo" to be opaque was a bad idea. But anyway, here goes: as you may have noticed I just LOVE making little tables to help me understand things: T=transparent, O=opaque, V=veridicial, NV=non-veridical Jorge's system Lojbab's system -------------- --------------- T/V lo broda da poi broda T/NV le broda le broda O/V xe'e lo broda OR (.ai/ko + lo) lo broda O/NV xe'e le broda OR (.ai/ko + le) ?? I haven't heard yet if Lojbab agrees with Jorge about the opacity of ko, .ai, and some other attitudinals, and I haven't actually seen Jorge use "xe'e le" but I'm extrapolating. Now that I lay it out this way, it doesn't look like there's that much difference except for notation, although I'm sure I'm glossing over some subtle effects on the overall interpretation of lojban bridi based on the different understandings of "lo broda". I guess I'm leaning towards Lojbab's system because 1) opaqueness crops up a lot and so Lojbab's is more Zipfy, and 2) in my personal usage veridiciality seems to correlate with opacity. But how does Lojbab handle an opaque non-veridicial reference? Could such a thing actually be useful? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chris Bogart cbogart@quetzal.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~