From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Oct 19 10:32:09 2004
Return-Path: <lojban-out@lojban.org>
X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 22030 invoked from network); 19 Oct 2004 17:32:09 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167)
  by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Oct 2004 17:32:09 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134)
  by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Oct 2004 17:32:09 -0000
Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34)
	id 1CJxqA-0000gT-1Z
	for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:32:06 -0700
Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34)
	id 1CJxpA-0000en-2F; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:31:04 -0700
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from web51602.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.38.207])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.34)
	id 1CJxob-0000cX-Eg
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:30:30 -0700
Message-ID: <20041019172954.4991.qmail@web51602.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [62.57.116.105] by web51602.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:29:54 PDT
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:29:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20041019131050.99379.qmail@web41901.mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-archive-position: 8773
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: jordimastrullenque@yahoo.com
X-list: lojban-list
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134
X-eGroups-From: jordi mas <jordimastrullenque@yahoo.com>
From: jordi mas <lojban-out@lojban.org>
Reply-To: jordimastrullenque@yahoo.com
Subject: [lojban] Re: jordis
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790
X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 23181


--- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>
wrote:
 

> You have to take into account that some of us tend
> to
> be quite blunt in expressing our opinions but that
> doesn't mean we are always right. I think Pierre's
> use of {du} in this case was perfectly correct and
> unobjectionable. Many do follow that rule of thumb
> never to use {du}, but that's their loss. {du} does
> have its proper uses.
> 
> One difference between {me} and {du} is that {x1 du
> x2}
> claims that "x1" and "x2" have exactly the same
> referent(s),
> whereas {x1 me x2} claims that the referent(s) of
> "x1" are
> among those of "x2". 
> 
> So:
> 
> (1)
> xu do fanva abu
> "Do/did you translate A?"
> 
> (2)
> xu do me le fanva be abu
> "Are you among those I describe as the translators
> of A?" 
> 
> (3)
> xu do du le fanva be abu
> "Are you the one(s) I describe as the translator(s)
> of A?"
> 
> In (2) and (3), the speaker has some referent(s) in
> mind, 
> the translators of A, and wants to know if you are
> them
> or one of them. In (1), the speaker only asks if you
> did a translation. In this case, Pierre knew about a
> person named Jordi that he called "the translator
> of A into Catalan", and he wanted to know if you
> were that 
> person, so his question with {du} was correct. 

coi xorxes.

Thanx. 

So the difference between (2) and (3) is that 
(2) asks is a set is a subset of another, 
while (3) asks for identity, is that it?

mu'o mi'e jordis.



=====



		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail