From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Jun 28 13:55:53 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 74206 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2006 20:36:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m30.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Jun 2006 20:36:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Jun 2006 20:36:42 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Fvgll-0003PP-Lz for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:36:17 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Fvgks-0003Ol-Hv; Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:35:23 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:35:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FvgkS-0003O5-Br for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:34:56 -0700 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.183]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FvgkQ-0003Nx-6G for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:34:56 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id b36so1817701pyb for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:34:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.127.15 with SMTP id e15mr611613pyn; Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:34:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.14.17 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:34:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560606281334s8b52a3cmce451a8ecaf96bc3@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:34:50 -0300 In-Reply-To: <44A2C9D1.1000807@mail.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <44A2C9D1.1000807@mail.ru> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 11849 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: -2.5 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 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: Once again about le and lo X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=XmMTudFs_lk5vcgmZplq2n2aOL0chLqFm9TMBjSJB27NoN6ITw X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26274 On 6/28/06, Dmitry wrote: > Please help me to check myself. > > Assume following two utterances: > 1) .i lo ratcu cu citka le cirla > 2) .i le ratcu cu citka le cirla .ije ra ratcu > > Are (1) and (2) equivalent? In (2) the speaker has some particular rat or rats in mind, in (1) there is no such indication. > Actually, before writing the message I thought that they are. But now, I > think it is not so, because of implicit quantifiers. > > Now consider following utterance > 3) .i su'o lo ratcu cu citka le cirla > > Is it equivalent to (2)? I believe, it should. (3) has no indication that the speaker has any particular rat in mind. Besides, if there were several rats that shared the cheese, (3) would be false, because it is not the case for any of the rats that it ate it by itself, but (1) and (2) would be fine. 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.