From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Mon May 10 19:17:41 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 10 May 2004 19:17:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41901.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.152]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.31) id 1BNMpq-00053j-Rv for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 19:17:35 -0700 Message-ID: <20040511021703.73608.qmail@web41901.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.43.213.68] by web41901.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 10 May 2004 19:17:03 PDT Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 19:17:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Jorge "Llambías" Subject: [lojban] Re: loglan/lojban masses/sets To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <20040511003031.GA26184@mit.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 7778 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 Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --- Rob Speer wrote: > On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 02:06:07PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > I would go with {lo finpe cu tolcitnau lo mabru}, > > "fish is older than mammal". > > This is the new XS "lo", right? It's a nice solution, but I'm really > skeptical that it does not thoroughly defy usage. > > I'm pretty sure there must be a significant number of examples where > someone has said "lo broda" and could not be referring to Mr. Broda. > Perhaps the Mr. Broda meaning wouldn't contradict what they said, but > would certainly be more general than they intended. I would bet that those examples are much fewer than the examples of people using lo when they can't possibly mean su'o. Perhaps we should analyse some definite corpus. > {la katrin poi mi prami}, who is learning Lojban gradually when she has > time, feels like she's thoroughly understood the difference between > {lo'e} and {lo}, and now people want to somehow make them the same word. Just tell her that {lo} is replaced by {su'o} and {lo'e} by {lo}. (I'm assuming you are talking of my usage of {lo'e}, of course, which didn't really have consensus.) I would expect {lo} to be used in most cases anyway, unless there is a good reason to use another gadri or a quantifier. It would be the unmarked default, like using no tense when it is not especially needed. So I would not expect people to use su'o unless it is important to quantify. > I know that gadri need a serious overhaul, but before I can support > anything like XS I'll need this to be explained. Sure, that's what the BPFK is supposed to be doing. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover