From lojban-out@lojban.org Sun May 07 19:06:17 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 57474 invoked from network); 8 May 2006 02:06:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.34) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 May 2006 02:06:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 May 2006 02:06:02 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fcv8K-0006uz-RD for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 07 May 2006 19:06:01 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fcv7G-0006tV-TQ; Sun, 07 May 2006 19:04:59 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 07 May 2006 19:04:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fcv6k-0006tM-Mm for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sun, 07 May 2006 19:04:22 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.237]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fcv6h-0006tE-Rf for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 07 May 2006 19:04:22 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i34so869574wra for ; Sun, 07 May 2006 19:04:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.15.17 with SMTP id s17mr736243qbi; Sun, 07 May 2006 19:04:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.218.2 with HTTP; Sun, 7 May 2006 19:04:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 20:04:18 -0600 In-Reply-To: <925d17560605071522j4dd115e3o926fefd677799e53@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: <925d17560605060934q5a2b6172t6f3826feae787599@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605061531j68fc5d28h65b798fa9eda5703@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605061852y63ba2990lb04dc252f3eb6f0f@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605070758u5e187557u331c39056f29fe51@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605071522j4dd115e3o926fefd677799e53@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11431 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=soDdD4AkqOTIWJ9y4yrvFG0kkuKzQHYMc7GAv_Wt3mQGespreg X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25847 On 5/7/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 5/7/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > > > > ({xu (do) pu viska (lo ro cribe) (ca lo nu do vitke le dalpanka)} > > > > > > > In the above, wouldn't you mean {...ro lo cribe...}? > > > > > > You could say that too. In that case you would be emphasizing the > > > distributivity. Something like "I'm asking about bears: did you see > > > each one of them?" > > > > My notion was that your example would imply that you were asking me > > "did you see that all the bears were indeed at the zoo?" (perhaps > > going on to say "No? Well then you don't know if the zoo contains all > > bears, do you?"). > > It could be taken that way too, but I don't think it has to. > > >The point being that your inner ro is not restricted > > by anything (like "the bears that were at the zoo"), while a blank > > inner would leave it up to context. Your blank outer (if it doesn't > > default to ro) implies that you could be asking about some and not all > > of all bears (unrestricted). The intent of my correction was to say > > something like "I'm asking about some type of bears (I'll leave it up > > to context for you to know which): you see each of that group while > > you visited the zoo? (aha, probably that-zoo-dwelling-bears)" > > Well, for me {lo ro cribe} simply refers to all bears, (whatever > "all bears" is in the context), and then you say something about Now that I've better formulated my thoughts regarding restriction, I fully disagree. The use of an inner {ro} means that your restriction is complete, and that context is no longer needed to determine what your reference is. > them. What you suggest could also be said more explicitly, for > example: > > xu do pu viska lo nu lo ro cribe cu zvati le dalpanka > Did you see that all bears were at the zoo? Yes, though this fails to mention anything about a visit to the zoo, as {xu (do) pu viska (lo ro cribe) (ca lo nu do vitke le dalpanka)} does, though it may imply it. > > In any case, inner {ro} for me does not bring any connotations > of the whole universe. Any contextual and unstated restriction for > {lo cribe [poi zvati le dalpanka]} can also apply to > {lo ro cribe [poi zvati le dalpanka]} > For me it says that I mean all bears (whole universe), but a normal number in that place would /not/ be an assertion stating that that many exist - these are /completely/ different. > > "The typical bear eats berries" is handled (in whatever way) with > > specifically {lo'e}, while "all bears eat berries" is handled > > specifically with {ro lo ro} - this is an aside from the issue, but in > > what case would you need a general term that covers both of these > > without specifying which? > > I don't think it's so much a matter of need as one of convenience. > You are not forced to make the distinction if you don't want to. Alright, in what case would it be a convenience then? > > > {lo} does not indicate anything more than conversion of a selbri > > > into a sumti. If you want to indicate specificity explicitly, you need > > > {le}, > > > > It may be so that lo covers loi/lo'e (and of course ro lo ro), but > > what is this specificity that le is necessary for? > > It's probably not necessary. There are many languages that manage > very well without any articles after all. If context or other means are > enough, you can just use {lo}. I think that it is not necessary because this specificity is not there. To say that other languages manage without articles implies that I'm suggesting that we no longer handle a case that is useful (taking articles out of lojban is taking a useful, even essential, thing out of it), but I can't say that I know of the utility or even existance of this specificity. It's not there, and yet we're handling it, by distinguishing between le and lo on that basis (or something). > > So, what does {lo vi cakla cu kukte} allow that {le vi cakla cu kukte} does not? > > {lo vi cakla} could be referring to the kind rather than the particular specimen > I hold in my hand. "This chocolate" in English can be either. A statement about the kind of chocolate would be done with a tanru {[chocolate type]}. The proper form of the 'type' variant is "I like this type of chocolate", the proper form of the normal variant is "I like this chocolate (a mass noun)". > > > xu do djica lo spisa be le cakla > > > Do you want a bit of the chocolate? > > > > Same question for this... > > I may ask {xu do djica lo spisa be lo cakla} without having any chocolate. > If you say yes, I might then have to go out and buy some. In that case > I can't use {le} because there is no particular chocolate I'm referring to, > I'm talking about chocolate in general. This is the old version, where an assertion about existance is made implicitly. > > > ko fairgau le cakla le zvati > > > Distribute the chocolate among those present. > > > > ...and this. > > Same here. With {le} there is some particular chocolate I'm asking > you to distribute. In this case, (since you contrast it with the below) you'd restrict the chocolate that you're referring to to chocolate that exists-here. > With {lo} that might be the case too, but I may just be > asking you to distribute chocolate among them without there being any > around that I know of. {ko fairgau le cakla le zvati} (distributor, shared-thing, those-distributed-to.) is: {ko fairgau le su'o cakla le su'o zvati} "distribute some chocolate to things/events-presiding-somewhere". The context will restrict both the chocolate and those present. If you have no chocolate, you probably mean "enough-for-us chocolate out of all chocolate that exists". If you have chocolate, you probably mean "all chocolate that is owned by me". I can't think of a case where the context wouldn't make this all obvious, but if there was, or if you just wanted to be explicit, then, for example, you'd just restrict your referant to "that which is here, now" in addition to the current restriction of "is-chocolate". 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.