From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Feb 05 09:25:49 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:25:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JMRY4-0005F1-9l for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:25:45 -0800 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.159]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JMRXc-0005Ct-OS for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:25:27 -0800 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id e12so2157915fga.0 for ; Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:24:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=v0RBL1vR5glGpxRDEyqoPE/B5hNGu+1W/MuGQwCp8bA=; b=hk3feZ843rOgoJA1GrdM1UIA87jH36PVmTQ9F63DE864cPhSLux28okHj4IW9aTVZEd+I2znof00UrCV7E5H8jQv9bvaB6qU7qFuEMDxK02ua9lYeH9+2NvPl4WI1L3NWYeuc1aJ5GEQq4uioFutHendnJofww1zXNwbj8tfcjk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Z3T0SxPs81e1vcZFcKwJ1Olcy7TMHLq14YYkGCTCCz0YDKfWfetn85RuFR1svXe1gRF9kHeKLOAUmP/buZsoQMiYIcaOTio9AypjNkWQUH82ugWCu1/9amjaxmjFgKogYYXCEiM7EdsMy6vaSBoSmvmY+okPVymwmVErAJNu1zY= Received: by 10.86.3.4 with SMTP id 4mr7990686fgc.55.1202230693797; Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:58:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.86.33.18 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 08:58:13 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560802050858r7c168158sfdb0a9426d3bb2d5@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 13:58:13 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: lo questions In-Reply-To: <96f789a60802050653w7150f351m19c64ef71b61b960@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <737b61f30802011636w6c8b6bc4hb34ab8bb417f1cf2@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560802021302h49211bddi9f801426904e6be2@mail.gmail.com> <20080202171948.7lyx8d18so84ooos@webmail.ixkey.info> <925d17560802031039s348b5caco36022d32efeeaff4@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60802050653w7150f351m19c64ef71b61b960@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 14160 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 2/5/08, Michael Turniansky wrote: > On Feb 3, 2008 1:39 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > > > ro lo nixli cu ponse re lo gerku .i ro lo gerku cu xekri > > Each girl owns two dogs. All the dogs are black. > > Okay, maybe now I'm confused. Why is the last sentence not "ro _le_ > gerku cu xekri"? What is thte difference in implication? Very little, as far as I can see. It would be slightly odd to use {le} in the second sentence and {lo} in the first one though, if {lo gerku} has the same referents both times. If the speaker has certain girls and certain dogs in mind, then {le} might be appropriate, but maybe that's not the case. We could perhaps make it more likely that the speaker does not have certain girls and dogs in mind with something like: .ei ro lo nixli cu ponse re lo gerku .i .ei ro lo gerku cu xekri Each girl ought to own two dogs. All the dogs ought to be black. > Can "le" > perhaps mean that only the two dogs that are owned by ONE (or other > subset) of the girls are black, Very unlikely, absent further context. If that's what the speaker has in mind, it is hard to see how the listener could figure it out just from those words. But I suppose it could be the case given some more context. For example, if pointing to one girl you say {ro le gerku cu xekri}, it might be taken to mean {ro le gerku poi ta ponse}. >while "lo" forces all of the dogs > owned by all of the girls to be black? I don't think {lo gerku} in one bridi can actually force anything about {lo gerku} in another bridi, but it would be surprising that they have different referents if nothing in the context has changed. If we want to be absolutely sure that the two are understood to have the same referents, it would be safer to use {goi ko'a} the first time and then use {ko'a} the second time. 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.