From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu Jun 09 06:10:56 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 93896 invoked from network); 9 Jun 2005 13:10:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m24.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Jun 2005 13:10:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Jun 2005 13:10:52 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DgMo5-0005p6-Gc for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 09 Jun 2005 06:10:49 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DgMnM-0005oI-BS; Thu, 09 Jun 2005 06:10:10 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 09 Jun 2005 06:09:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DgMn1-0005o8-0M for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 09 Jun 2005 06:09:43 -0700 Received: from web81305.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.80]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DgMmq-0005o0-9V for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 09 Jun 2005 06:09:42 -0700 Message-ID: <20050609130931.77329.qmail@web81305.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.69.50.91] by web81305.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 09 Jun 2005 06:09:31 PDT Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 06:09:31 -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: 10114 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: {lo}, {lu'o}, and {loi}. X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=WgdkRuoXdY4NNjfBC1_bEW3AQHeq1j_EZG4vq6dh8g4b_hplJg X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 24484 --- Opi Lauma wrote: > Hello, > > I try to systemize the usage of {lo}, {lu'o}, > and > {loi}. (I have started from the lessons of Nick > Nicholas > (http://www.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/lojbanbrochure/lessons/less4articles.html)). > > Citation: > Now consider the English sentence Three men > carried a > piano. This sentence has two potential > meanings, as > does any sentence involving a plural in > English. You > could be saying that the sentence holds true > for each > individual of the group. If the men involved > are Andy, > Barry, and Chris, you might be saying that Andy > carried the piano, and Barry carried the piano, > and > Chris carried the piano. Alternatively, you > could be > saying that the sentence holds for the group as > a > unit: no one carried the piano individually, > but all > three men carried it together. > > My problem: > I understood that "individual" interpretation > means > that sentence holds true for each individual of > the > group (as I understand it is necessary > condition), in > other words it means that Andy carried the > piano, and > Barry carried the piano, and Chris carried the > piano. > For "individual" interpretation one need to use > {lo} > or {le}. Ok. However it is not clear for me > whether it > is implied that each of them cary the piano > individually. For example, if they all together > carry > the piano it means that each of them carry the > piano, > but nobody carry the piano individually. Is it > still > "individual" interpretation and one need to use > {lo} > or {le}? One can conclude that answer is "No". > Because > further it is written that in the second > ("unit") > interpretation "no one carried the piano > individually", exactly as in my example. So if > they > all together carry the piano one need to use > {lu'o}. > However, if one uses {lu'o} it does not > necessarily > means that each person of the group take a part > into > the carryng of the piano. So, what I need to > say if I > want to say that each of them carry the piano > and they > do it together? I am not sure I understand the case you have in mind. Is it that the three of them each carry the piano individually but they are moving together and sort of pass the piano from one to the other? In that case, the carrying the piano is individual ({lo} or more likely {le}, since we know who they are). Their walking along is done together in the sense of {kansa}; using {loi} (or {lei}) here would seem excessive, since the predicate clearly applies to each separately. There are obviously complexities here but I hope we don't need to go into them yet. Now, in the case just examined, it does seem that lu'o remna (assuming this can have local reference) does also carry the piano -- much as a team can score a run because one member of it does. Although Lojban handles these different situations by gadri, they are in fact different ways that a predicate can apply to the same "thing" (a bunch of people in this case) and might be better handled by indicating directly how the predication takes place (there are also cases where the gadri cannot be used or where it causes unnecessary complications), but Lojban does not provide the means for doing this (that anyone has seen so far). To summarize the status quo: {lo} is used when the predicate applies to each member of the group separately (this is a very defective report on {lo} as presently being proposed but it will serve as a handy rule of thumb), {loi} is used when the predicate applies to the group collectively (but not individually), and {lu'o} when it applies to the group by virtue of its applying to at least one member of the group -- or some combination of those members. These latter two are rules of thumb as well, since there are cases where we may be unsure (at least) that this is the correct form to use.