From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu May 19 16:52:23 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 81273 invoked from network); 19 May 2005 23:52:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m27.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 May 2005 23:52:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 May 2005 23:52:22 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DYuiJ-0006XY-Cx for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 19 May 2005 16:46:03 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DYuhk-0006X1-Kp; Thu, 19 May 2005 16:45:29 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 19 May 2005 16:45:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DYuhZ-0006Wr-E5 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 19 May 2005 16:45:17 -0700 Received: from web81310.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.85]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DYuhX-0006WA-MF for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 19 May 2005 16:45:17 -0700 Message-ID: <20050519234444.89867.qmail@web81310.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.69.48.37] by web81310.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 19 May 2005 16:44:44 PDT Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 16:44:44 -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: 9985 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 From: John E Clifford Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Subject: [lojban] Re: {le} and {lo}. X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 24357 --- Chris Capel wrote: > On 5/19/05, John E Clifford > wrote: > > > > --- Chris Capel wrote: > > > Now, I believe that what Opi Lauma said > would > > > have been more true > > > before your revised BPFK definition of > {lo}, > > > right? But the BPFK has > > > revised {lo} to be a generic article > instead of > > > whatever it was > > > supposed to be before. So Complete Lojban > > > Language, and Lojban for > > > Beginners, are both out of date in this > > > respect. (Particularly, I > > > think the section in LFB on lV, lVi, and > lV'i > > > is particularly > > > confusing and unhelpful, especially now.) > > > > > This is not the place to get into {lo} > > discussions again. The xorlo, even were it > > consistent, would change the way one talked > about > > {lo} very little and the way one used it > scarcely > > at all (but those rare cases are doozies). > > Proceed as before and, until you get into > > metaphysical discussions (and an occasional > > intensional context), you will do just fine > with > > the old version (it was always generic, it > just > > is we used to know what that meant). > > I'm not particularly interested in discussing > the intricacies of the > changes to {lo}. But I do know that they struck > me as making me much > more likely to use the article, and also they > particularly affect the > accuracy and usefulness of LFB 4.2[1] > (especially regarding loi). {loi}-{lei} parallels {lo}-{le} pretty exactly. {lo}-{loi} brings in a whole new dimension, distributive and collective predication (or some other terminology to the same effect. Once you get the idea that a bunch of things can act as a unit, however, this is not much of a problem (I hope). (Even this is controversial in a number of ways, but not many that affect what you read or write.) >So > the changes don't strike me as un-noteworthy as > you would have them > be, and I think that Opi Lauma in particular > seems to have been > somewhat confused by the changes. His > previous[2] statement would be > accurate under the old system, as I understand. > I also found it odd > that Jorge wouldn't mention the reason Opi's > current understanding was > wrong--that xorlo changed the behavior of the > inner quantifier of > {lo}. Oh, that really old system! Yes, the CLL ssystem has implicit quantifiers on both {le} and {lo} that are cross-wise to one another: outside {ro} and inside {su'o} for {le} and the reverse for {lo}. I don't think that has been used for years and was certainly objected to (and ignored) almost from the get-go. The intermediate position -- before xorlo -- was {ro} out and {su'o} in for both. xorlo officially does away with implicit quantifiers, but most of the time has the effect of this intermediate position. Even explicit quantifiers work out about the same, though they get to that place by different enough routes that occasional differences arise.