X-Digest-Num: 227
Message-ID: <44114.227.1249.959273825@eGroups.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:06:00 +0100
From: A Rosta <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Re: Anselmisms and gadri
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 1249
Content-Length: 1249
Lines: 39

> > Huh!  That's news to me.  Either I missed that ruling/development,
or brain
> > cells in charge of remembering it have been lax.
>
> News to me too - I was once taken to task for using {ko'a} without
> specifying it, and rightly so, I think.  The closest Lojban equivalent
> of he/she/it as an anaphoric pronoun is probably the ri/ra/ru series.
>
> co'o mi'e robin.

{ko'a poi/voi} does of course specify -- or at least go some way
towards specifying - the referent.  As for the likeness of {ri} to
English personal pronouns, the task at hand was not to find a
Lojban counterpart for the personal pronouns per se but rather
to find a Lojban counterpart for "a certain something/one",
"a specific thing" (which is pretty much what I take English
him/her/it/them to mean).

I'm sure I have seen others besides myself observe that if every
statement
contained an explicit illocutionary operator (I hereby assert/order/...
that)
then +specific references are equivalent to an ordinary existentially
quantified variable outside the scope of the illocutionary operator.
Thus:

            brode le broda
and
            brode ko'a (voi ke'a broda)

are equivalent to

            da  (voi ke'a broda) I-HEREBY-ASSERT: brode da

 --And.