From lojban-out@lojban.org Sat May 06 19:00:44 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 63857 invoked from network); 7 May 2006 01:54:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.35) by m29.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 May 2006 01:54:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 May 2006 01:54:45 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcYTr-00033g-HV for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 06 May 2006 18:54:43 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcYSA-00033A-Jv; Sat, 06 May 2006 18:53:00 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 06 May 2006 18:52:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcYRh-000331-4H for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 06 May 2006 18:52:29 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.235]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcYRd-00032t-1k for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 06 May 2006 18:52:28 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i13so847514wra for ; Sat, 06 May 2006 18:52:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.69.1 with SMTP id r1mr852962wra; Sat, 06 May 2006 18:52:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.126.18 with HTTP; Sat, 6 May 2006 18:52:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560605061852y63ba2990lb04dc252f3eb6f0f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 22:52:23 -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: <925d17560605051745m294b69c7m645ccc5cf61d037f@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605051949x4e9558c7oa69d3c999bc17680@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605060934q5a2b6172t6f3826feae787599@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605061531j68fc5d28h65b798fa9eda5703@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11421 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=aBHtwy7cci-H7-oJjpAHrKecgUywsEHhaTdSzRwysPkRqh5DrA X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25837 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. > {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. > 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. > 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. > > 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. 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.