From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Sat Jul 26 08:41:51 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 71603 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2003 15:41:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Jul 2003 15:41:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Jul 2003 15:41:48 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19gRB6-0004TW-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 08:41:48 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gRAr-0004Sv-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 08:41:33 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 26 Jul 2003 08:41:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.113]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gRAa-0004Ry-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 08:41:16 -0700 Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-54-17.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.54.17]) by lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 609423CF19 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 17:40:43 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <001001c3538c$4a3dd940$11360751@oemcomputer> To: References: <157.2210b00c.2c53194b@wmconnect.com> <200307251957.11389.phma@webjockey.net> Subject: [lojban] Re: "they" Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:40:13 +0100 Organization: Livagian Consulate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-archive-position: 5988 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 20470 > > btw, "ledu" seems weird to me. > > Me too. It sounds like using "same" for "it". As xorxes has said, the meaning of "ledu" is simply the automatic product of the meaning of "le" and the meaning of "du". When used with a meaning analogous to that of "them", "du" is used as the semantically emptiest possible brivla (not because it is semantically empty, but because it is so uninformative, given that ro da du su'o de. If Lojban had such a thing as a dummy brivla with no meaning, then we would use that instead. --And.