Date:  Tue, 11 Nov 1997 13:27:01 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199711111827.NAA28843@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Organization: University of Central Lancashire
Subject:      Re: le/lo
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 2938
X-From-Space-Date: Tue Nov 11 13:27:04 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

Jorge:
> Lee:
> >{mi na nelci lo mlatu}, for example, says exactly the right thing: I
> >don't like some cats.
>
> No, it says that you don't like any cats.

Right.

> What you mean is
> {mi na'e nelci lo mlatu}: There is at least one cat that I non-like.

We've been through this before. You are right only if the only
relevant scale of liking is two valued: liking and not liking.
The best way to say what Lee wants is:

  mi nelci lo mlatu na ku

i.e. use {na}, but make sure it follows {lo mlatu}.

> >(Prior debate on this issue reached the conclusion that the correct
> >descriptor is "loi".  I won't attempt to reahsh this though.)
>
> I think you are misremembering. The debate was about
> "I'm waiting for a taxi" or something like that, where it is not
> true that there is a taxi such that you are waiting for it.

You remember correctly. I think Mark originated that.
FWIW, I disagree with it. I think {loi taksi} pretty much
entails {su`o pa taksi}. Instead the problem is the old
nitcu & sisku seeking/hunting one we debated a couple of years
ago, where you have sumti raising out of a desiderative or
other intentional context.

> There's no problem either with:
>
>                             mi denpa tu'a lo plejykarce
>                             "I'm waiting for something about a taxi."
>
> because the quantification is within the abstraction:

Was that actually established? I don't remember that.

>
>                              mi denpa le nu lo plejykarce ti klama
>                              "I wait for the event that there is a taxi that
> comes here."

That I think is an improvement, though I'm not too happy about
the {le nu} bit. Which nu are you referring to? But {lo nu}
would be no improvement, for it might be that the taxi will
never come. Better would be "mi XXX zei denpa le du`u lo
plejykarce....": "I wait for it to become the case that there
is a taxi that arrives here".

I say "XXX zei denpa", because "denpa", like virtually all other
intentional gismu, is defined in a different, and ultimately
illogical way. The only solution I can see, if the baseline is
respected, is to abolish the use of these gismu and use
alternative correctly-defined selbri instead.

> The problem you refer to appears in things like:
>
>                             mi sisku lo'e plejykarce
>                             "I'm looking for a taxi."
>
> where you don't want to claim that there is a taxi such that you are
> looking for it. I don't agree that the conclusion we reached was that
> the right gadri to use was {loi}, either. I think that the correct one
> is {lo'e}.

I can't believe you're correct. This is partly because it seems to
me that the solution must involve a subordinate clause, and
partly because noone really has a clue what lo`e means. I know
from experience that when we've discussed it before we basically
sat around inventing candidate meanings for it. (Same for le`e.)

--And