From pycyn@aol.com Tue Sep 04 18:24:48 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 5 Sep 2001 01:24:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 89257 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2001 01:24:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Sep 2001 01:24:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m08.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.163) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Sep 2001 01:24:48 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.28.1a39ad5c (3924) for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 21:24:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <28.1a39ad5c.28c6d8d8@aol.com> Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 21:24:40 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] specificity of 'ma' To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_28.1a39ad5c.28c6d8d8_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10447 --part1_28.1a39ad5c.28c6d8d8_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/4/2001 3:27:36 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > Does {lo prenu} count as an answer? "A person" counts as an answer > to "what goes to the store?", but not as an answer to "who goes to > the store?". My impression was that {ma klama le zarci} could be > either, and one can use {le mo} and {lo mo} to make clear the > Mebbe yes, mebbe no. As I say, what the context requires as relevant is still at the glorking stage -- and always will be according to Grice. Notice, for example taht long-dead people can't be named as current murderers and so on. Maybe we need {la mas} to insist on a name. --part1_28.1a39ad5c.28c6d8d8_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/4/2001 3:27:36 PM Central Daylight Time,
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


Does {lo prenu} count as an answer? "A person" counts as an answer
to "what goes to the store?", but not as an answer to "who goes to
the store?". My impression was that {ma klama le zarci} could be
either, and one can use {le mo} and {lo mo} to make clear the
specificity required (specific "which"/"who" vs. non-specific "what").


Mebbe yes, mebbe no.  As I say, what the context requires as relevant is
still at the glorking stage -- and always will be according to Grice.  
Notice, for example taht long-dead people can't be named as current murderers
and so on.  Maybe we need {la mas} to insist on a name. --part1_28.1a39ad5c.28c6d8d8_boundary--