Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 20:56:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711170156.UAA03732@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Sender: Lojban list From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Subject: Re: le/lo X-To: lojban To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1392 X-From-Space-Date: Sun Nov 16 20:56:07 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU And: >> >> mi sisku lo'e plejykarce >> >> "I'm looking for a taxi." >> >> >But anyway, I would beware of anything that can't be mechanically >translated into logical terms. "I am book-reading" would >mean "there is a book and I am reading it", while "I am >taxi-seeking" would not mean "There is a taxi and I am seeking >it". But {mi tcidu lo'e cukta} would not always mean "there is a book and I am reading it". For example: mi tcidu lo'e cukta ze'a le crisa I was reading books all summer long. I realize that there is a difference with intentional selbri, but sometimes it is the case that there is a box such that I need that particular box, and I want to be able to say that easily: {mi nitcu le va tanxe} = "I need that box over there". That requires some way to refer to needing a box when there may not necessarily be one, and I think {mi nitcu lo'e tanxe} is right for the job. But it certainly is very weird that, for example, {le se nitcu} and {le se sisku} are defined so differently. >I would be happier if you used lujvo rather than this lo`e >method. At least with lujvo we know they can have idiosyncratic, >nonmechanical translations into logical terms. With {lo'e} too. Or do you have a mechanical way of translating {lo'e} into logical terms? co'o mi'e xorxes