From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed May 24 06:20:30 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 29769 invoked from network); 24 May 2006 13:20:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 May 2006 13:20:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 May 2006 13:19:46 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FitAF-0000ic-QI for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 24 May 2006 06:12:40 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fit79-0000eJ-0O; Wed, 24 May 2006 06:09:28 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 24 May 2006 06:09:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fit6g-0000d3-GH for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 06:08:58 -0700 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.170]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fit6e-0000cw-6q for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 06:08:58 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j40so1671629ugd for ; Wed, 24 May 2006 06:08:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.17.1 with SMTP id 1mr1695891huq; Wed, 24 May 2006 06:08:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.23.12 with HTTP; Wed, 24 May 2006 06:08:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560605240608t20353b28gd96dea490efc8a71@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 10:08:52 -0300 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <925d17560605160731j379ecfdbo42862a88433e112c@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605221736p1d02db31sb154ed5cc4d0e793@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605221856w7c5703b4p9ec1d1b296e67093@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605230610r25b3f886tbaa964838a659d74@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605231539l2bdbcf8bqe44d242fa371eed7@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 11671 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: -2.5 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 2:12:4:0 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: A (rather long) discussion of {all} X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=0n5AvZsvc0RtqF0FLToTh1f0d7uBmskUWCIRCieUFU5Ci_9LjA X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26090 On 5/23/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > Overall I don't think that it's a good idea to have {lo} not marked. It's a very good thing to be able to be precise when you need/want to. It is also a very good thing not to be forced to be precise when you don't need/want to. > You should be able to say the following: > > {??? nanmu cu bevri lo pa pipno} > e1: individually, two (and only two) of the group of two men carried the piano. > e2: individually, all of the group of two men carried the piano > e3: together, two (and only two) of the group of two men carried the piano. > e4: together, all of the group of two men carried the piano > > 1-4 I would say are: > > 1: {re lo vo nanmu cu bevri lo pa pipno} > 2: {ro lo vo ...} > 3: {ro loi vo ...} / {lu'o re lo vo ...} > 4: {ro loi vo ...} / {lu'o ro lo vo ...} Ah, you meant inner {vo}, I was a bit confused by your versions in English, where you wrote "two" instead of "four". Agreed for 1 and 2, and also for the {lu'o} version of 3 and 4, although {loi} instead of {lu'o} would be grammatical there too, so they would probably be preferred: {loi re lo vo nanmu...} and {loi ro lo vo nanmu}. > Forget distributivity/non distributivity. Before we even consider > them, we have to agree on this: the inner says "this is the quantity > of the group that I am referring to", Corrrect. > and the outer says "this is the > number of that group that I am going to say something about". Not quite. You are going to say something about all the things you are referring to, why else would you want to refer to them? To see this more clearly, consider this example: there is a row of four chairs, with a person sitting on each of the chairs and another person standing behind it. We can say: (1) vo le bi prenu cu zutse Exactly four of the eight people are sitting. (2) naku mu le bi prenu cu zutse It is not the case that exactly five of the eight people are sitting. (3) ro le vo sanli cu trixe pa le vo zutse Each of the four standers is behind exactly one of the sitters. Now, perhaps in (1) you can imagine that you are selecting a group of four to say something about them, but which group of five are you selecting in (2), and which one of the sitters are you selecting in (3)? In (1) you are saying something about the eight people: that exactly four of them are sitting. In (2) you are saying something about the eight people: that it is not the case that exactly five of them are sitting. In (3) you are saying something about the four standers and the four sitters: that each of the first ones is behind exactly one of the second ones. > And finally, what {lu'a} and {lu'o} mean to you, if they mean anything. lu'o = lo gunma be lu'a = lo cmima be 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.