From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu May 11 18:29:13 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 83301 invoked from network); 12 May 2006 01:29:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.35) by m32.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 May 2006 01:29:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 May 2006 01:29:12 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FeMSs-00008g-Tk for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 11 May 2006 18:29:11 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FeMS5-000081-Ku; Thu, 11 May 2006 18:28:23 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 11 May 2006 18:28:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FeMRd-00007i-Ux for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 11 May 2006 18:27:54 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.230]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FeMRb-00007b-Nl for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 11 May 2006 18:27:53 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 67so516331wri for ; Thu, 11 May 2006 18:27:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.121.18 with SMTP id t18mr677743wrc; Thu, 11 May 2006 18:27:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.126.17 with HTTP; Thu, 11 May 2006 18:27:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560605111827s5c1ee336u524d2a08555bd739@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 22:27:50 -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: <925d17560605101754ibf2c8k435cb516bfee8b32@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605101920o84917e4t99c4dc0b2b9d9b6c@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605110956u4dd0b662xffdce093966219b6@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605111709w1198a046n52838e84ee0fcc1c@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11502 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=LmLbi5yKBETq1wlwty1bkRnCs4DX-IfLP3bX68H7dPrK4ONeow X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25919 On 5/11/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > You're responding to the only two comments made by me that don't focus > on my point - that is, you've skimmed over my point entirely. The > paragraph starting with "Not by your rules. Here..." outlines my > point, and I would appreciate a response to it, as I think that it > shows clearly that there is something amiss with the current usage of > {ro}. I think I gave my response more than once. {lo ro cribe} refers to all bears. Nothing that can relevantly be said to be a bear is left out by it. I don't know how else to explain it, but obviously I'm not making myself understood by you since what you call my rules are not my rules. I will respond to the paragraph you indicate, but I will be repeating myself: > > > How would you say "let's talk about all bears that have ever existed"? > > > > e'u mi'o casnu lo ro cribe poi pu ja ca zasti > > Not by your rules. Yes, that's how I would say it. > Here you are inviting me to talk, out of the bears > that are in context, of the ones that have existed and exist. Not the bears that are in context. All the things that can be relevantly said to be a bear. There is an important difference there. Most things that can be relevantly said to be bears, in most contexts, will not be in the context. > This is > clearly inconsistent. When does {__ ro} refer to all bears? When does "all bears" refer to all bears? Always. > When > someone includes the word zasti after a poi? When all bears in context > clearly already exist? "Aha, clearly he's not talking about all bears > already in context, because I thought that they all exist... wait, was > he talking about more than existing bears then"? No, {lo ro cribe} is always "all bears", i.e. all the things that can relevantly be said to be bears. > And what if all bears > in context don't exist now-before, and I want to suggest talking of > the ones that do? How can they not exist and yet exist? > Do the rules of Lojban change based on the context > (all bears in context meet restrictions = new context, if they don't = > modification of current context)? Not sure what you mean by that. The universe of discourse is not something fixed once and for all discourses, nor is it fixed once and for all in a given discourse either. By its very definition it is molded by the discourse itself as it evolves. 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.