From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed May 10 16:37:47 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 64365 invoked from network); 10 May 2006 23:37:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.35) by m25.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 May 2006 23:37:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 May 2006 23:37:46 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FdyFT-00030b-Nv for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 10 May 2006 16:37:43 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FdyDV-00030A-7Q; Wed, 10 May 2006 16:35:44 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 10 May 2006 16:35:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FdyD3-0002zp-SM for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 10 May 2006 16:35:13 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.233]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FdyD1-0002zf-8P for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 10 May 2006 16:35:13 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 67so268149wri for ; Wed, 10 May 2006 16:35:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.96.18 with SMTP id t18mr113148wrb; Wed, 10 May 2006 16:35:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.126.17 with HTTP; Wed, 10 May 2006 16:35:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560605101635x1702203cu13e8397e3ee956ea@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 20:35:08 -0300 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060509160830.76878.qmail@web81310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <925d17560605091911q49d9049fk74d621c05ae2a62f@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605100646o576097b7n1eb81fa3d7c681df@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605101536r3efb57c0re1125ff3301a3403@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11469 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0 X-eGroups-From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" Reply-To: jjllambias@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=fLX7K84JB9Q-da7sgL-DrKwR3UDQh3210aV6n0BaQMARMAb51g X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25886 On 5/10/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > On 5/10/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > I hope I never said that was my definition. It is not. {ro} is just "all", > > not "all in context". > > > You had stated: > > > Well, for me {lo ro cribe} simply refers to all bears, (whatever > > "all bears" is in the context), That's right. Do you see the difference between "all in context" and "all" in context? I need the context to figure out what "all" quantifies, which in general won't be necessarily restricted to the things present in the context. > with regards to your zoo example: > > > xu do pu viska [lo ro cribe] ca lo nu do vitke le dalpanka > > Did you see all bears when you visited the zoo? > > > > I don't have any specific bears in mind there, because I don't even know > > how many bears the zoo has. I do intend to ask about all the bears at > > the zoo, but all I know about them is that they are all the bears at the > > zoo. > > In the Lojban half of your example, you use an inner ro, which in > accordance with "{ro} is just 'all', not 'all in context' " should not > refer to those bears that are at the zoo. It could, but it need not, that's right. Which means that your > Lojban-half is asking if someone had seen all bears ever within the > zoo, which is contrary to your ensuing English explanation. Am I > correct? No, "all" need not mean "all ever". > > Right. You need context to figure out the precise referent of {lo ro cribe}, > > but it certainly does not normally refer to whatever bears are present in the > > context. > > Erm. "all bears (ever)" /is/ the referent of {__ ro cribe}. If it > isn't, then "all bears (figure out which 'all' I mean based on > context)" would be the referent. Which I hope I demonstrated to be a > Bad Thing. No, what you showed is that having an implicit restriction to things present in the context would be a bad thing. But having an implicit restriction to all things ever would be just as bad. > Sticking a {ro} into the inner means that you don't need context to > "figure out"/make a best-guess - though you may very well need to know > what the context is so that you can make things relative to it. You always need context to figure out the meaning of an utterance, in any language. In actual language use, context is always there. It is only in isolated examples that context might be absent, and that's why it is not all that fruitful to discuss these things with respect to isolated examples. mu'o mi'e xorxes To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.