From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri May 05 21:39:15 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 3154 invoked from network); 6 May 2006 04:39:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 May 2006 04:39:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 May 2006 04:39:13 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcEZT-00027h-9j for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 05 May 2006 21:39:11 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcEY1-00026Y-PS; Fri, 05 May 2006 21:37:44 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 05 May 2006 21:37:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcEXZ-00026L-Jv for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 05 May 2006 21:37:13 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.232]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcEXW-00026E-JJ for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 05 May 2006 21:37:13 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i34so671927wra for ; Fri, 05 May 2006 21:37:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.10.13 with SMTP id 13mr663091qbj; Fri, 05 May 2006 21:37:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.218.2 with HTTP; Fri, 5 May 2006 21:37:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 22:37:09 -0600 In-Reply-To: <925d17560605051949x4e9558c7oa69d3c999bc17680@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: <20060505125724.6757.qmail@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <925d17560605051356y14c8bc45xf602f0e8189b1d5e@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605051745m294b69c7m645ccc5cf61d037f@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605051949x4e9558c7oa69d3c999bc17680@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11407 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=gzmJpb4zr3SB4H1OulBclewIgYGMvHbMYy3FD7dYFTzwf8NH3w X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25823 On 5/5/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 5/5/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > I guess that it's whatever Lojban structure is used to express the > > difference between "the cat ran to the HOUSE", "the cat RAN to the > > house", and "the CAT ran to the house", as they are used in English. > > That's {ba'e}, but I don't think {ba'e} helps for "is THE neighborhood > to live in". > At least I don't see why emphasizing a gadri in Lojban should have the > same effect that an emphatic "the" has in English. (Spanish works just > like English in this regard, so it's not something peculiar to English, but > still, I don't see why it would be transferred to Lojban.) "it is THE neighborhood" probably has something to do with "it is the ideal form" (though I don't think that Lojban has an ideal form in the same way that it has a typical form.) > > > It is perfectly possible to use {le nobli turni be la uels} for the real > > > Prince of Wales, since it is a particular, specified nobli turni be > > > la uels, and that would be the first interpretation that comes to mind > > > in the absence of context to the contrary. > > > > What's {lo nobli turni be la uels} ? > > "Noble governor(s) of Wales". If we know Wales only has one such, > then we might understand it as "the (current?) noble governor of Wales". > > > > {lo} is always a good substitute for {loi}. If {loi} did not exist, I wouldn't > > > miss it. > > > > This is perhaps my point. I theorize that the proper intent of {loi} > > vs {lo} has been shifted into {lo} vs {le}. > > {loi} has had a very shifty history indeed, but I don't think along the lines > you suggest. In any case, the meaning of {le} has been exceptionally stable > among gadri, it still has basically the same meaning that it also has in > Loglan. > > My current understanding of {loi} (I'm not sure I can call it the current > consensus, but maybe yes given that pc agrees) is that it simply > indicates nondistributivity. {loi ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno} > "three men (together) carried the piano" vs. {ro lo ci nanmu cu > bevri le pipno}, "each of three men carried the piano". > > {lo}, being semantically empty for me, does not indicate distributivity > nor non-distributivity, so it can be used for both cases. > > > My {loi} is your {lo}, and my {lo} is your {le}. > > I'm not sure your {loi} is different from my {loi}, I'd need to see more > examples. > > In any case, when my {loi} is correct, my {lo} is also correct, if more > vague. My {lo} just doesn't carry any indication about distributivity. > > > You seem to have no place for your {loi}. > > I do, but in my experience distributivity seems to be almost always obvious > from context, and using {loi} brings other problems with it (like for example > you can't apply a distributive and a non-distributive predicate to the same > sumti, "the three men were wearing red shirts (each his own) and carried > the piano (the three together)", so I simply use {lo/le} unless indicating > non-distributivity is really crucial and non-obvious for some reason. > > > Your definitions: > > > > le - {le labno} - "the wolf ran away" (specific wolf) + "what I'm calling a" > > lo - {lo labno} - "wolves faces extinction" (general wolf) > > Not always, but it covers it. > > > lei - ? > > loi - ? > > These both indicate nondistributivity. I see what you mean, and perhaps I was wrong to use loi in some of these cases (e.g. "loi - {loi labno} - wolves face extinction (general wolf)"). In that case I should have described them as {lo ro}, which points towards where the confusion arises. I think it's that ro is the default inner quantifier of lo, and so some things that are true for the default case extend into cases where numbers are specified. {lo ro cribe cu citka lo ro jbari} - "(all) bears eat berries" {ro lo cribe cu citka lo ro jbari pe mi} - "(some specific) bears ate (some unspecific of) my berries" {ro lo cribe cu citka ro lo ro jbari pe mi} - "(some specific) bears ate (, specifically,) all my berries" {ro lo ci cribe cu citka lo ro jbari pe mi} - "three bears ate my berries" (all of some specific three) {ci lo ro cribe cu citka lo ro jbari pe mi} - "three bears ate my berries" (some unspecific of all) Two questions before I can give a better explanation: What is the difference between {ro lo ro cribe} and {ro le ro cribe} by your definition? How would you say "I mean every last bear in the universe", keeping in mind that {le pa cribe} would not say anything about the amount of bears in the universe? > > > le'e - ? > > lo'e - ? > > I don't have a definite opinion. See > > for some discussion on > the problems of the "typicals". Looks interesting, though I can't translate some of the Lojban that the examples use. 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.