From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed May 10 16:06:13 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 58548 invoked from network); 10 May 2006 23:05:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.36) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 May 2006 23:05:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 May 2006 23:05:54 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fdxke-0002km-Lq for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 10 May 2006 16:05:52 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fdxjy-0002jR-JI; Wed, 10 May 2006 16:05:12 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 10 May 2006 16:05:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FdxjX-0002j7-3U for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 10 May 2006 16:04:43 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.207]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FdxjS-0002iz-UT for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 10 May 2006 16:04:42 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id n29so40555nzf for ; Wed, 10 May 2006 16:04:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.148.1 with SMTP id v1mr159833nzd; Wed, 10 May 2006 16:04:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.153.14 with HTTP; Wed, 10 May 2006 16:04:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 17:04:38 -0600 In-Reply-To: <925d17560605101536r3efb57c0re1125ff3301a3403@mail.gmail.com> 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: 11468 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: maxim.katcharov@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: "Maxim Katcharov" From: "Maxim Katcharov" Reply-To: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=DetK31zBuxPS-DAjrPtPwgNqdGlV4XIZyIL3LhNnFusSSLnG9w X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25885 On 5/10/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 5/10/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > On 5/10/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > > Yes, and it's easy to do in Lojban: > > > {lo ro cribe poi nenri le va selri'u}, {lo ro dinju pe le mi klaji}. > > > > > > > By your definition, "all in context":: > > 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), 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. 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? > > "All in context" is a bad use for inner {ro} for these reasons. > > I agree it would be bad. > > > > I mean that the set of referents that a word brings into a discourse > > > is never given by the word itself independently of the context of the > > > discourse. > > > > > Yes, but using context to figure things out is different then refering > > to the context. > > 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. 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. 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.