From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri May 27 14:33:20 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 27 May 2005 14:33:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50)
	id 1DbmS8-0003aH-DJ
	for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 27 May 2005 14:33:12 -0700
Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.198])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
	id 1DbmS6-0003aA-5c
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 27 May 2005 14:33:12 -0700
Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 68so921164wri
        for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Fri, 27 May 2005 14:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=GfJwsJjuo3iH+TjnIjKRWU1dwYhe7LxzpF3/IzSMhA3nSPBKEKirXOQ95RMnrTuuYEH6+WwWYLzIOhzOKu6bEnh49pKE32O308vp/1Xz6Mx+yfXWeOF+/DfUDgqsbscbT+LH/55SwjXo4En5ACBO2+wCntK47teP+1hC6w2pBak=
Received: by 10.54.40.57 with SMTP id n57mr1812506wrn;
        Fri, 27 May 2005 14:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.54.67.20 with HTTP; Fri, 27 May 2005 14:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <925d175605052714346b0d8e60@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 18:34:22 -0300
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: Again {lo}.
In-Reply-To: <20050527211129.76583.qmail@web81306.mail.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20050527211129.76583.qmail@web81306.mail.yahoo.com>
X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--)
X-archive-position: 10066
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

On 5/27/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Does this mean what I and Robin TR said is not
> true of {lo gerku}?

But you two said different things.

Robin.tr said: "{lo gerku cu pendo lo remna} means that 
there is at least one dog, such that it is a friend to at least 
one human, which is not what we want here."

pc said: "Surely, if no dog is a friend of any man, then
{le gerku cu xagai pendo lo remna} is false, so it does 
indeed entail Robin Turk's claimed reading."

But the problem with Robin.tr's statement was not
what {lo gerku cu pendo lo remna} _entails_ but rather
what it _means_ in full. The question was whether or not it is 
what we want here to translate "the dog is man's best friend".

Robin.tr is quite correct that {su'o lo gerku cu xagrai pendo
su'o lo remna} is a bad translation of "the dog is man's 
best friend", even if the latter entails the former.

Robin.tr was assuming that {lo gerku cu xagrai pendo
lo remna} = {su'o lo gerku cu xagrai pendo su'o lo remna}.
(Not just entails but completely equivalent.)

Robin.ca correctly pointed out that with the BPFK understanding
of {lo}, {lo gerku cu xagrai pendo lo remna} is not the same
thing as {su'o lo gerku cu xagrai pendo su'o lo remna}, and that
the former, (but not the latter) is a good translation of
"the dog is man's best friend".

mu'o mi'e xorxes