From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Jul 28 11:07:44 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 28 Jul 2009 11:07:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MVr5U-0005ez-4o for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 11:07:44 -0700 Received: from mail-pz0-f201.google.com ([209.85.222.201]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MVr5Q-0005eg-Ge for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 11:07:44 -0700 Received: by pzk39 with SMTP id 39so154969pzk.28 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 11:07:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=AgLdpTzSCUnm+sAGcER1dBNuqilxUaoKc2pLx22JQ8w=; b=vV7BQVPeQQWth8m7detbkD/mWkmSnzahDyhvXvogTjCo7SEjhDS+GKrsWw6KNAOaCf zbt64y2+K3Ocwsv0L1OhLQnlFP+ABiKgKoSmCjG7YDqkMQTwBEPUVuXy2zMu67eJxg2H peltYkxIfgfcr7fRlnLs0a0/3PYmhRXyYa/TA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=KVNSksIeb9htFBzHkQzzDeQQXbOEKWsE96OPGkeDZvQ1cUYEjCqnAYVrfH/ubprgLU NotBmJKCnVLNL2x9svmzTzOz2pbgib7KnvOybo0WOpsYruhVOYFBAV16WsQhMFDbO9Vi k39XObk0iZB0/9e1hj2gsotCSyiS0C7gXRJXg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.94.21 with SMTP id x21mr4970370vcm.88.1248804453735; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 11:07:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <925d17560907281046h181eba2bmbad07d736c9460e5@mail.gmail.com> References: <200907280045.44937.phma@phma.optus.nu> <96f789a60907280533n45388b3dg4d9e7596e5c1e541@mail.gmail.com> <200907280859.09514.phma@phma.optus.nu> <96f789a60907280709h7960f3fftc2c9a5a083360ed2@mail.gmail.com> <664922.39992.qm@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5715b9300907280903t63cd372du13da398fe2e4b7ac@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560907281046h181eba2bmbad07d736c9460e5@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:07:33 -0400 Message-ID: <5715b9300907281107v3c30f7cfs2664ef246a2edbb9@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: elliptical sentences From: Luke Bergen To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636283db8dbdda2046fc7f1d7 X-archive-position: 15828 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --001636283db8dbdda2046fc7f1d7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable mmm, I think I have been misunderstanding "lo" in that case. From the "How to use xorlo" page on lojban.org I read: " Something that needs to be noted in general: we, the BPFK, made a consensus decision that we *do* *not* make rulings on ontological or metaphysical issues; that is, we will not tell you whether phrase X has meaning or validity. That is discussion and speaker specific, and not our job. In some discussions, saying "mi kalte pa lo pavyseljirna" (which litterally means "there exists one thing that is a unicorn that I am hunting"; this implies that at least one unicorn exists) is perfectly reasonable, in others it's a reason to put someone in a mental hospital. In a similar vein, "lo" is now = * completely* generic " I understood that to mean that if I say "mi viska lo pavyseljirna" that I a= m not saying "I see a unicorn which really exists" but rather that I am sayin= g "I see some thing which I describe as 'a unicorn'". Am I misunderstanding that? - Luke Bergen 2009/7/28 Jorge Llamb=EDas > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Luke Bergen wrote= : > > if I'm remembering correctly, under xorlo {lo} means something like > "having > > something to do with", with no implications of actual existence, whethe= r > it > > is in the speakers mind only, or whether it _really is_ a specific > instance > > of whatever it is that you're talking about. > > As far as I understand, "lo" has always been and remains veridical, > not just "something to do with". It doesn't have to be specific, it > can be generic, but it is veridical, and it has no direct relation to > existence. "lo xanri" for example is something imaginary, not > something imaginary that also exists. It has to be imaginary, not > "having something to do with imaginary". > > > Whereas {le} means that you have a specific thing in mind although I > don't > > believe it makes any truth claims about whether or not it _really is_. > So > > "le gerku" would mean "I have an actual thing in mind that I'm calling > 'dog' > > " while "lo gerku" would mean "there is something that I'm choosing to > refer > > to as 'dog' ". > > Sounds right to me. "le" has always meant that. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.or= g > 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. > > --001636283db8dbdda2046fc7f1d7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable mmm, I think I have been misunderstanding "lo" in that case.=A0 F= rom the "How to use xorlo" page on = lojban.org I read:

"
Something that needs to be noted in= general: we, the BPFK, made a consensus decision that we do not<= /b> make rulings on ontological or metaphysical issues; that is, we will not tell you whether phrase X has meaning or validity. That is discussion and speaker specific, and not our job. In some discussions, saying "mi kalte pa lo pavyseljirna" (which litterally means &quo= t;there exists one thing that is a unicorn that I am hunting"; this implies that at least one unicorn exists) is perfectly reasonable, in others it's a reason to put someone in a mental hospital. In a similar vein, "lo" is now completely generic
"

I understo= od that to mean that if I say "mi viska lo pavyseljirna" that I a= m not saying "I see a unicorn which really exists" but rather tha= t I am saying "I see some thing which I describe as 'a unicorn'= ;".=A0 Am I misunderstanding that?

- Luke Bergen


2009/7/28 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com&g= t;
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Luke Bergen<lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> if I'm remembering correctly, under xorlo {lo} means something lik= e "having
> something to do with", with no implications of actual existence, = whether it
> is in the speakers mind only, or whether it _really is_ a specific ins= tance
> of whatever it is that you're talking about.

As far as I understand, "lo" has always been and remains ve= ridical,
not just "something to do with". It doesn't have to be specif= ic, it
can be generic, but it is veridical, and it has no direct relation to
existence. "lo xanri" for example is something imaginary, not
something imaginary that also exists. It has to be imaginary, not
"having something to do with imaginary".

> Whereas {le} means that you have a specific thing in mind although I d= on't
> believe it makes any truth claims about whether or not it _really is_.= =A0 So
> "le gerku" would mean "I have an actual thing in mind t= hat I'm calling 'dog'
> " while "lo gerku" would mean "there is something = that I'm choosing to refer
> to as 'dog' ".

Sounds right to me. "le" has always meant that.

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.


--001636283db8dbdda2046fc7f1d7-- 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.