From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat Jun 03 10:04:32 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 03 Jun 2006 10:04:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FmZXp-0004Ez-Oi for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 10:04:13 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.233]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FmZXn-0004Er-Sl for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 10:04:13 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i7so735292wra for ; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 10:04:10 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=tjkHhOpcYoOjxzuf0rEacXD/eYocTS8aVpNDP8JIjBzRJwgCj4rNmuUdFk9dKh+Sh3YdpEIhe8dH8+NAtB0LWlZIt7cUvdKbSP6zkfBVu5+NYEVqNzC5OsdVT4a5NK6pMHdpyIP5hs8mdbs9z7DmiDVa9QybCy2scgJaUbpu/4A= Received: by 10.64.150.20 with SMTP id x20mr587632qbd; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 10:04:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.237.19 with HTTP; Sat, 3 Jun 2006 10:04:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560606031004w32e6030bmdfa696123a99ed2e@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 14:04:10 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: <20060603162029.74094.qmail@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060603162029.74094.qmail@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11714 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 6/3/06, John E Clifford wrote: > --- Maxim Katcharov > > > > Use {lu'o} (or whatever) after a {gi'e} in > > the same transient manner > > > > in which English occasionally uses > > "together". There are many other > > > > solutions. > > Quite aside from the other points, this > suggestion is not without merit, since we need > some such temporary mode indicators (I suppose > "temporary" is redundant, since modes are only > for one place on one predicate at a time). I suspect moving the word {lu'o} out of selma'o LAhE and into, say, selma'o UI, is totally out of the question at this stage, so whatever the merits of the suggestion for a distributivity marker on the selbri, you can bet from the start that it won't fly if you present it in terms of that move. Better introduce a new word for it. (That's my advice, anyway.) As for the suggestion itself, the problem is that a selbri can have more than one argument, so it is not enough to have a marker that says "this selbri is non-distributive", you need a marker that says "this selbri is non-distributive for its n-th argument". Unless you want to say something like "this selbri is non-distributive for at least one of its arguments, use context to figure out which one(s)" or "this selbri is non-distributive for its first argument" (given that that is likely to be the one used most frequently). 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.