From mark@kli.org Tue Jul 29 10:53:26 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: mark@kli.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 66920 invoked from network); 29 Jul 2003 17:53:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Jul 2003 17:53:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pi.meson.org) (66.134.26.207) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Jul 2003 17:53:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 23032 invoked from network); 29 Jul 2003 17:53:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kli.org) (@192.168.1.101) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 29 Jul 2003 17:53:23 -0000 Message-ID: <3F26B494.2010206@kli.org> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:53:24 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: le du X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.3.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Mark E. Shoulson" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=3263785 X-Yahoo-Profile: seqram2 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 20480 {accidentally sent this to lojbab instead of the group...} At 05:35 PM 7/29/03 +0000, you wrote: >--- In lojban@yahoogroups.com, Jorge "Llambías" >wrote: > > > > la xod cusku di'e > > > > > I haven't yet seen a good reason to use le du. > > > > There is no reason not to use it. It has a clear meaning > > determined by the meanings of {le} and {du}. You don't have to > > use it if you don't want to, there usually are alternatives, > > but it is well defined. It is a matter of style which > > alternative you prefer. {du} is the emptiest possible > > description you can get, as it applies to everything. > > {le du} is equivalent to {le su'o da}. > >As I think about it, I'm not really sure that's true. That is, it is >true from a formal standpoint, but not necessarily pragmatically. "le >du" is "something which is the same." If I heard that in >conversation, the obvious naive question is "le du be ma?" "ma du ma?" > It is certainly true that anything is the same as something (namely >itself), but doesn't this violate Gricean relevance? The fact that >whatever it is is identical to something/itself may be true, but is >generally not relevant to whatever we're talking about. It's almost >like we're discussing my family, and I suddenly refer to "le ctuca" >without ever mentioning that my brother is a professor. > >~mark -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org