From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Jul 22 05:42:22 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 61085 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2003 12:42:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 Jul 2003 12:42:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Jul 2003 12:42:22 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19ewTG-0007jf-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 05:42:22 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ewSw-0007jL-00; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 05:42:02 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 22 Jul 2003 05:42:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs24349-133.austin.rr.com ([24.243.49.133] helo=cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ewSn-0007jC-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 05:41:53 -0700 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6MCqHxN065852 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 07:52:17 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8/Submit) id h6MCqGns065851 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 07:52:16 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 07:52:16 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: le du Message-ID: <20030722125216.GA65784@allusion.net> References: <20030721180838.U72693-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> <00df01c34fd9$2cf11340$55350751@oemcomputer> <20030722005320.GA61835@allusion.net> <3F1CE8E8.5050000@bilkent.edu.tr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F1CE8E8.5050000@bilkent.edu.tr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-archive-position: 5951 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 20433 --BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 10:34:00AM +0300, Robin Turner wrote: > Jordan DeLong wrote: > >On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 11:41:02PM +0100, And Rosta wrote: [...] > >>le du cu frili > >> > >>-- where "le du" might here refer to the act of giving an example text = in > >>Lojban. > > > > > >How does {le du} (something like the thing which I describe as being > >equal to some thing(s) (which are obviously itself, because they > >are equal to it...)) differ from {le co'e}? > > > >(That is, aside from being more esoteric). > > > >It seems to me like they are the same, except that {le co'e} is > >more "honest" (for lack of a better word). > > > >Of course, in *real* usage, in a case where the referent wasn't > >recently mentioned, you'd probably say "zo'e". (If it were mentioned, > >you'd use zo'e or ri/ra/ru/lerfu). > > > I can't see the point in using zo'e in the first place - if it's=20 > obvious, leave it blank. Leaving it blank counts as using zo'e. --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline [Attachment content not displayed.] --BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl--