From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Tue Jul 29 11:12:48 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 56044 invoked from network); 29 Jul 2003 18:12:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Jul 2003 18:12:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Jul 2003 18:12:47 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19hYxr-00069a-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:12:47 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hYxK-000690-00; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:12:14 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:12:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41906.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.157]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hYx1-00068f-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:11:55 -0700 Message-ID: <20030729181125.47621.qmail@web41906.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.49.74.2] by web41906.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:11:25 PDT Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:11:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [lojban] Re: le du To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <3F26B494.2010206@kli.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 5999 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Jorge "Llambías" Reply-To: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=142311107 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 20481 la mark cusku di'e [...] > > > {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." No, that's {le mintu}. "du" does not mean "...is the same as...", it does not say that two things are the same, it relates a thing only with itself. > >If I heard that in > >conversation, the obvious naive question is "le du be ma?" "ma du ma?" Everything is a du because everything dus itself. You don't need to ask what something is duing, as everything necessarily dus itself and only itself. > > 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. Is there any brivla with even less content that will do instead? We are using {du} to get the specificity content of {le} without any additional semantic content from the brivla. > 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. Not exactly. If you know what du means, you know that everything is a du. If you know what ctuca means, you need not know that your brother is a ctuca. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com