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 m0r66bN-00005bC; Sat, 12 Nov 94 02:45 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1369; Sat, 12 Nov 94 02:46:09 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1365; Sat, 12 Nov 1994 02:46:09 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6984; Sat, 12 Nov 1994 01:42:59 +0100 Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 19:47:32 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: wff, lo broda...le broda X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1207 Lines: 30 > > Someone (Iain?) said that > > {le broda} will mean the at least one broda that satisfied whatever > > was claimed for {lo broda}, but this is not very clear to me. > > It's an interpretation rule for a bare "le broda" in an environment > where no "le broda" has appeared before. Yes, that's how "a" and "the" work in English. I thought that was the main reason why {lo}/{le} were not like "a"/"the", because even for first mention you'd have to use {le}, but this interpretation seems to allow for the same convention of English. > If there has been some previous > "da" restricted to be "poi broda", then suppose that "le broda" is another > way of saying this "da". More specifically, since (on your view) > "lo broda" = "DA poi broda" for some anonymous DA, "le broda" provides a > handle on this variable. I'm not opposed to it. I'm just saying that from that to saying that {le} = "the", {lo} = "a/some", there is a very small step. > Note that once a da-series variable, real or hidden, has been bound, further > uses of it are +specific: > > da poi nolraitru cu cusku zo broda .i da cusku zo brode Is there any rule for how long the binding lasts, or is it left to context? Jorge