Received: from spooler by stryx.demon.co.uk (Mercury/32 v2.01); 25 May 98 02:24:20 +0000 Return-path: Received: from punt-21.mail.demon.net (194.217.242.6) by stryx.demon.co.uk (Mercury/32 v2.01); 25 May 98 02:24:09 +0000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net by mailstore for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk id 895878480:20:16311:0; Fri, 22 May 98 23:08:00 GMT Received: from listserv.cuny.edu ([128.228.100.10]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa2118385; 22 May 98 23:07 GMT Received: from listserv (listserv.cuny.edu) by listserv.cuny.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <2.FFFEBA10@listserv.cuny.edu>; Fri, 22 May 1998 19:09:31 -0400 Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 20:02:55 -0300 Reply-To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" Sender: Lojban list From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" Subject: Re: CPE: lo prenu na fuzme. PLI: fuzme X-To: lojban To: Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN Message-ID: <895878478.2118385.0@listserv.cuny.edu> X-PMFLAGS: 33554560 7 Content-Length: 2141 Lines: 53 Lionel: >But can't /lo prenu na fuzme.../ also mean "Some people are not responsible >for...", thus leaving away the generality? No, it means that it is not the case that some person is responsible, i.e. that nobody is responsible. This is because {na} negates the whole bridi, and has scope over {lo prenu}. >Does /lo remna cu mabru/ mean >"Any human is a mammal", or "Some humans are mammals"? The latter. {ro remna cu mabru} means the former. All of these mean the same: lo remna na mabru naku lo remna cu mabru no remna cu mabru ro remna naku mabru {na} at bridi level is like {naku} at the beginning of the bridi. It has scope over all that follows. {naku} always has scope over what follows. When you interchange the places of a sumti and {naku} you have to change the quantifier from {ro} to {su'o} or from {su'o} to {ro} in order to keep the same meaning. >> i ja'o no prenu cu fuzme le nu ri zukte noi jalge le nu sidbo e le nu cinmo >> "I conclude that nobody is responsible for their actions, which result >> from ideas and feelings." > >Yes, this is the paradox I meant. It leads to the various meanings of >'responsability'. Should /fuzme/ hold both the pragmatic responsability or >control over oneself, and the moral or social responsability for one's actions? I think it refers to the moral/social responsibility, because of the x3. That's also why ideas cannot possibly be fuzme of anything, they cannot be held accountable by anyone. A more interesting question might be whether the originator/propagator of an idea is responsible for the actions of the followers: i xu le te sidbo cu fuzme le se zukte be le krici be le sidbo co'o mi'e xorxes