From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Jun 09 06:06:26 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 12193 invoked from network); 9 Jun 2006 12:55:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m33.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Jun 2006 12:55:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Jun 2006 12:54:59 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FogSU-0001aX-M9 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 05:51:26 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FogQy-0001ZC-7o; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 05:49:54 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 09 Jun 2006 05:49:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FogQW-0001Z2-Ac for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 05:49:24 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.193]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FogQU-0001Yu-8q for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 05:49:24 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id 4so647780nzn for ; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 05:49:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.181.19 with SMTP id d19mr2929749qbf; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 05:49:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.237.19 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 05:49:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560606090549k2275f466x7802ac6c9b6abfd3@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 09:49:20 -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: <925d17560606071637u1dfabac7n6e3551086a616f58@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560606080643r55da8773gd4fad0bdac0c505a@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560606080832j516fc7c9g7783a394f3d1074a@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11771 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: 2:3:4:0 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: A (rather long) discussion of {all} X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=4-2ww5x3bT0OC_Mjvr6tC6oSZsUiSC3uUYJzgjuMq0eGVNCIlw X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26192 On 6/8/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > On 6/8/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > Suppose Alice and Betty are the only students > > in the group, and the rest of the people surrounding the building are > > professors, is "Students surround the building" true? > > Yes, it becomes much more apparent (to me, at least) once written out > in Lojban. It's not {la alis cu sruri lo dinju}, it's {lu'o la alis cu > sruri dinju}. My understanding of our disagreement so far had been as follows: (1) loi tadni cu sruri le dinju (2) lu'o lo tadni cu sruri le dinju (3) lo tadni cu sruri le dinju We both agreed (I thought) in which situations (1) would be true and in which situations it would be false. We both agreed that {loi} could be decomposed as {lu'o lo}, so that (2) says the same as (1). We disagreed on whether the {lu'o} component could be optionally omitted. I held that {lu'o} was optional, and so could be dropped when context made it unnecessary, as in the example of students surrounding a building, and you held that {lu'o} could not be dropped because if it was dropped the predicate {sruri} had to be necessarily taken as distributive. But now the disagreement seems to occur at an earlier step. We no longer seem to agree about the meaning of (1). For example, if there is a chain of rocks around the building, with a gap filled by Alice, who is a student, you would say that (1) is true and I would say it is false. For me it is false because it is not the case that students surround the building in that case. For you it is true because it is the case that a group of things that includes at least one student surrounds the building. Do we at least agree on what we disagree about? 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.