From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRDG2ajeBBoEVo7pnQ@googlegroups.com Sat Apr 17 14:49:20 2010 Received: from mail-qy0-f155.google.com ([209.85.221.155]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O3Ft5-0007Ss-0X; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:49:19 -0700 Received: by qyk27 with SMTP id 27sf6440363qyk.22 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:49:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:date:received:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=RSRyextjVM5yMSNKThTa8sfRRS/AVaJjkUBUoWW+Ky0=; b=CMSJcbljvWiVuonePdnq+Vb4lFMXATKdoyOpokfrLXXYZOVW4cooAAa1MyoIShhuw1 dDCT6Zc/ZSvJXLdjZflABsa7dmNH2sOXIZOj1o4B9Jry10xl/QmQ2+pUL4/oLH4NkVE4 FFo6cFAb4DAegP6LhjS+4pX3QsYqLCjhX8O9k= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=s7vuvTXUNZc+BSl3fGlm8uNGnL/vKNLU4vEdapS78vOv3AM0XWkKraU2+eT7/bI8j3 ZWiP3FMul4zbZquXhf6LKjENaMdSHGYTJFqxuYBfNn77nEGiqgnLhC5AqElwulSDImWm NREklSdQ7d8z+tx94Yqh9aSQqGOaI0ymA9GpU= Received: by 10.224.40.7 with SMTP id i7mr232134qae.48.1271540934815; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:48:54 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.224.53.149 with SMTP id m21ls3424706qag.6.p; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:48:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.65.89 with SMTP id h25mr429688qai.21.1271540932975; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:48:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.65.89 with SMTP id h25mr429687qai.21.1271540932918; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:48:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com (qw-out-2122.google.com [74.125.92.24]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 24si738983qyk.10.2010.04.17.14.48.51; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:48:51 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.92.24 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.92.24; Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 3so183231qwe.5 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:48:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.79.75 with HTTP; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:48:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <618898.68218.qm@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4BBE188B.8070807@lojban.org> <4BC3B98F.5070805@gmail.com> <4BC4B763.6070903@gmail.com> <4BC52345.7010303@gmail.com> <4BC9056F.9040705@gmail.com> <618898.68218.qm@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 18:48:51 -0300 Received: by 10.229.222.76 with SMTP id if12mr4411305qcb.17.1271540931782; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:48:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] {le} in xorlo From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.92.24 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 6:04 PM, John E Clifford wro= te: > Ah, how this takes me back to see that, despite protestations to the cont= rary, SOS still floats around. "Save Our Ship"? "Save Our Souls"? > Item: the proliferation of connectives,all of which mean the same thing b= ut have to be infinitely subdivided by the narrow context in which they occ= ur (the largest single item in the "There must be a better way" folder for = LoCCan3) Do you mean jo'u/ju'e/fa'u/joi/ce/ce'o/jo'e/ku'a/pi'u, most of which mean "and", and the ones that don't are more or less useless? I would have to agree, but I'm not sure how it relates to the present discussion. > Item: expanding 'ro da poi broda cu brode' to 'ro da zo'u ganai da broda = gi da brode' which, unless we have a new, better, way to express restricted= quantification (I can think of several but haven't seen any mentioned late= ly), is just flat wrong , failing in the case where there are no brodas (or= iginal false, expansion true). Discussed to death already, but you are welcome to mention the several new, better ways you can think of. > Item: misapplying the notion of quantification out of context, by wrongly= writing the two cases involved (assuming, for only the moment, that 'zo'e'= etc. have anything to do with 'lo' and 'le').(illocution goes before the q= uantifier in the first case). If I'm reading this correctly, you are saying that "poi" always requires a quantifier, whether explicit or implicit, that is under the scope of the illocutionary force. I'm not totally adverse to the idea, as I'm not totally happy with a quantifier-less "poi". (But I also have my reservations, because we don't have plural quantifiers.) > Item: Good ol' Mr. Broda, a notion even yet more obscure than 'zo'e' (or = even 'zo'e'e'), =A0Not only is it never explained but it changes to fit wha= tever argument xorxes is presenting at the moment. =A0In this case it seems= to be a generic thing for now, as if there were generic things rather than= general ways of talking about ordinary things (that is, as if the problem = were with gadri rather than with sentence modifiers of some sort). =A0But i= t will turn up again in some other disguise if another argument comes along= . Forget I even mentioned it. > I get the general impression that what is presently being claimed is that= all xorlo did was drop the implicit quantifiers on descriptions, since eve= rything else seems to be unchanged. Maybe not all, but that's the significant part, yes. >=A0Suspect this is technically true -- totally for the external quantifier= s and structurally for the internal ones, although 'le broda cu brode' and = 'lo broda cu brode' do both entail that something brodes Only if "something" can be a plural "something". So "lo prenu cu se culno lo klaji", "people fill the streets", does entail that "something" fills the streets, namely people, but not that any one person fills the streets. > and the latter that at least of those things is a broda. Well, the "something" that brodes has to be broda, yes, though not necessarily "a broda". mu'o mi'e xorxes --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.