From sentto-44114-15161-1029791334-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Mon Aug 19 14:09:29 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:09:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n25.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.81]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17gtmA-0000fE-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:09:26 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-15161-1029791334-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.98] by n25.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 19 Aug 2002 21:08:55 -0000 X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 19 Aug 2002 21:08:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 62194 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2002 21:08:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Aug 2002 21:08:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r07.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.103) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Aug 2002 21:08:53 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v33.5.) id r.3a.2b3a6887 (18707) for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 17:08:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3a.2b3a6887.2a92b85f@aol.com> To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 17:08:47 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] I like chocolate Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_3a.2b3a6887.2a92b85f_boundary" X-archive-position: 691 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: pycyn@aol.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --part1_3a.2b3a6887.2a92b85f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/19/2002 9:48:04 AM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: << > > {mi nelci lezu'o citka loi cakla} > > > >Suggestions, corrections? > > The article {le} indicates that you liked one particular > occasion (or each of the particular occasions you have in > mind) of eating chocolate. To say that you like eating > chocolate generically, I would suggest {lo'e} instead of > {le}. (Nobody pays much attention to this though, we often > use {le nu} to refer to generic events rather than particular > ones.) Also you can say {mi nelci lo'e cakla} directly. >> Only if you are xorxes; the rest of us have to stick to the formal rules, which don't allow direct references to dubious objects in places that call for abstract arguments. Happily, {nelci} allows both abstract and concrete references in this place, so the range of possibilities is open. Presumably, your interest is not just in a particular piece, nor in some unspecified piece(s), so neither {le} nor {lo} (nor, probably {loi}) fits in. {lo'e} won't work if it means "typical" or "average" or some such, since the point is that you typically eat chocolate with pleasure, not that you necessary always (or right now or....) eat typical chocolate with pleasure (average chocolate is, well, average, and so might not be so pleasurable, typical might be worse). On the whole, moving off into the intensional seems the right thing to do (and what xorxes would have {lo'e} do, usually). --part1_3a.2b3a6887.2a92b85f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/19/2002 9:48:04 AM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

<<
>     {mi nelci lezu'o citka loi cakla}
>
>Suggestions, corrections?

The article {le} indicates that you liked one particular
occasion (or each of the particular occasions you have in
mind) of eating chocolate. To say that you like eating
chocolate generically, I would suggest {lo'e} instead of
{le}.  (Nobody pays much attention to this though, we often
use {le nu} to refer to generic events rather than particular
ones.) Also you can say {mi nelci lo'e cakla} directly.

>>
Only if you are xorxes; the rest of us have to stick to the formal rules, which don't allow direct references to dubious objects in places that call for abstract arguments.  Happily, {nelci} allows both abstract and concrete references in this place, so the range of possibilities is open.  Presumably, your interest is not just in a particular piece, nor in some unspecified piece(s), so neither {le} nor {lo} (nor, probably {loi}) fits in.  {lo'e} won't work if it means "typical" or "average" or some such, since the point is that you typically eat chocolate with pleasure, not that you necessary always (or right now or....) eat typical chocolate with pleasure (average chocolate is, well, average, and so might not be so pleasurable, typical might be worse).  On the whole, moving off into the intensional seems the right thing to do (and what xorxes would have {lo'e} do, usually). 
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--part1_3a.2b3a6887.2a92b85f_boundary--