From lojban-out@lojban.org Sat May 28 07:07:05 2005
Return-Path: <lojban-out@lojban.org>
X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 14266 invoked from network); 28 May 2005 14:07:04 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166)
  by m21.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 May 2005 14:07:04 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134)
  by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 May 2005 14:07:04 -0000
Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50)
	id 1Dc1we-0000Ec-AT
	for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 28 May 2005 07:05:44 -0700
Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
	id 1Dc1wL-0000DL-RF; Sat, 28 May 2005 07:05:28 -0700
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 28 May 2005 07:05:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50)
	id 1Dc1w4-0000D2-RN
	for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 28 May 2005 07:05:09 -0700
Received: from web81304.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.79])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.50)
	id 1Dc1w0-0000Cg-9K
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 28 May 2005 07:05:08 -0700
Message-ID: <20050528140622.27130.qmail@web81304.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [68.88.37.184] by web81304.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 28 May 2005 07:06:22 PDT
Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 07:06:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: 6667
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
X-archive-position: 10076
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net
X-list: lojban-list
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134
X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0
X-eGroups-From: John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>
From: John E Clifford <lojban-out@lojban.org>
Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net
Subject: [lojban] Re: Again {lo}.
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=YiezTapy2RDfZYtUJ-p5VDRkt2NSBjAVWq4QkmSJZlJjh1z2vQ
X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 24447


--- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Well, without more context I would almost
> certainly interpret it in the
> adage sense, just as I would interpret a
> tensless sentence out of
> context in an atemporal sense. It requires a
> much stronger context to
> interpret it as "some dog will be, two days
> from now and for a duration
> of 37 minutes, best friend to some human." It
> could eventually mean 
> that, but it's highly unlikely.
> 
So it all comes down to style (in this particular
case at least -- though the general claim about
{lo} seems to be more). I automatically take
unmarked cases as particular and past tense
(maybe present).  This habit, which in the case
of {lo} was embodied in the old sense  -- may
account for our differences in the two readings:
whether they are about all the critters and then
be satisfied with chunks or about some of the
critters and then require all of those.