From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Tue Oct 19 07:16:07 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 81378 invoked from network); 19 Oct 2004 14:16:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m20.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Oct 2004 14:16:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Oct 2004 14:16:06 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CJujP-0005Ev-GA for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 07:12:55 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CJuiV-0005B5-Ps; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 07:12:00 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 19 Oct 2004 07:11:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41901.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.152]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CJuhv-00053j-0W for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 07:11:23 -0700 Message-ID: <20041019131050.99379.qmail@web41901.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.49.74.2] by web41901.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 06:10:50 PDT Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 06:10:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20041019121741.93448.qmail@web51604.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 8766 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 X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 From: Jorge "Llambías" Reply-To: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Subject: [lojban] Re: jordis X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=142311107 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 23174 --- jordi mas wrote: > So my rule of thumb from now on is "never use du even > when you want to assert identity, just in case". coi jordis 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. mu'o mi'e xorxes _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com