From lojban-out@lojban.org Sun May 07 00:59:00 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 12509 invoked from network); 7 May 2006 07:58:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m27.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 May 2006 07:58:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 May 2006 07:58:58 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fce5l-0001zc-C4 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 07 May 2006 00:54:13 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fce4P-0001y4-Jh; Sun, 07 May 2006 00:52:53 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 07 May 2006 00:52:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fce3w-0001xn-C1 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sun, 07 May 2006 00:52:20 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.235]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fce3s-0001xf-R0 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 07 May 2006 00:52:20 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i34so789765wra for ; Sun, 07 May 2006 00:52:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.235.15 with SMTP id m15mr485729qbr; Sun, 07 May 2006 00:52:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.218.2 with HTTP; Sun, 7 May 2006 00:52:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 01:52:15 -0600 In-Reply-To: <925d17560605061852y63ba2990lb04dc252f3eb6f0f@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: <925d17560605051745m294b69c7m645ccc5cf61d037f@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605051949x4e9558c7oa69d3c999bc17680@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605060934q5a2b6172t6f3826feae787599@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605061531j68fc5d28h65b798fa9eda5703@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605061852y63ba2990lb04dc252f3eb6f0f@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11422 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=AKIhiHg7QpVDhE611hbKLBxSCnXUOVpjK6ED8Lu0QvDjLf0nEQ X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25838 On 5/6/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 5/6/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > > What kind of each are you talking about? "each bear" is ambiguous, not > > generic, I would think. > > Vague maybe, rather than ambiguous? > > Perhaps an example with something less natural-kindish than bears > could show what I mean more clearly. For example: > > ro lo tadni poi zvati ro lo nunctu ba snada > Each student that attends every course will pass. > > There is no specific group of students involved there, and I may not > be thinking of any specific set of courses either. This may be for > example a rule in some school. Maybe no student has even enroled > yet. It is possible that we agree here. I had said: {ro lo ro cribe} = each of all bears {ro lo cribe} = each of all the bears (i.e. each of the bears I'm talking about) My {ro lo tadni poi zvati ro lo nunctu ba snada} would (roughly) be "each of students (i.e. each of the students I'm talking about, and the ones I'm talking about are attenders of...) ..." Perhaps not relevant, but I think that the best way to say that would be either {[each student that attends is identical to some of the passing students (in the future)]}, or perhaps {[being an all-class attender causes you to be successful (in the future)]}. > > {ci lo ro cribe cu citka lo ro jbari pe mi} - "of all bears, there are > > exactly three such that each of them eats all my berries." > > > > When you say "exactly three", I don't think that you mean /only/ three > > ({po'o}). > > I do mean at least three and at most three. In other words, of all bears > there have to be three and no more than three such that each eats all > my berries. > > {po'o} is different however. For example, if in addition to exactly > three bears, there was an elephant that also ate all my berries, > {po'o} would be wrong, but "exactly three bears" would still be right. Yes, you're correct. The proper thing to do in that case would have been to use su'oci (or perhaps even {ro lo ci [such that see me]}?). > > And if not that, then "exactly" seems unneccisary. Is it? > > And so, what is the difference between: > > > > {ro lo ci cribe} > > {ci lo ro cribe} > > In the first case, I'm going to say something about three bears, that each > of them is or does something. In the second case, I'm going to say > something about all bears, that exactly three of them are or do something. You indicate that you say something about what the inner qualifier is. How is it (in the second example) that you say something about all bears? In {ro lo tadni poi zvati ro lo nunctu ba snada} you use similar forms, but {ba snada} applied to the outer quantifier, {RO lo tadni...}. You were saying something about all those students, and not "those such that...". If you had said {ci lo tadni poi...} (perhaps you're making a prediction: only three will pass), you'd be saying something not about that undefined number of students, but some exact three. So what is it that you mean by "say something about [inner quantifier]"?. > > Consider that it may be: > > > > [unspecific subset of] lo [a specific 'set' of bears that I'm thinking > > of] ("set" may not be the same as the lojbanic set.) > > Perhaps we are using "specific" differently. All I require of the referent > of {lo ci cribe} is that it consist of three bears. Seems right, yes. > > > I don't think {lo ro bear} is any more precise than "all bears" in English. > > > > Yes, "all bears" is what I meant, I just wanted to be explicit that I > > meant "all bears", and not "all of some bears that I have in mind" or > > anything like that. > > An 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. I am not using the description to get at some referents that I have > otherwise in mind. There is only the description that generates the referents > for me. I am certainly not asking about all bears that exist in the universe. ({xu (do) pu viska (lo ro cribe) (ca lo nu do vitke le dalpanka)} - did I group the sumti properly?) In the above, wouldn't you mean {...ro lo cribe...}? Perhaps this: You had offered "I think that {le} indeed serves to preclude the 'any' or 'in general' interpretation that {lo} does not preclude". Point being that {le} had something to do with specificness, and that {lo} allowed for something general. What is this general thing? Some examples have been given, with focus on "3 bears eat berries" vs. "bears eat berries", where the latter was intended to illustrate generalness. I don't think that it did, since it could only, in my mind at least, mean one of two things: "the typical bear eats berries", and "all bears eat berries", both of which are adequately handled. What is the distinction between {lo} and {le} if it is not 'specificness'? And if it is 'specificness', could you illustrate it with a new example, or show how my interpretation of previous examples fails? 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.