From lojban+bncCOjSjrXVGBD_i5vgBBoENAOgKQ@googlegroups.com Wed Jun 02 13:58:56 2010 Received: from mail-pz0-f138.google.com ([209.85.222.138]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1OJv1X-0008T4-Li; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 13:58:55 -0700 Received: by pzk2 with SMTP id 2sf1564661pzk.24 for ; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 13:58:45 -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:received :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; bh=kgOaai1D5oFwxu/nIBk+0i8EdhY1mobeq5tO0pRcr6c=; b=c1AZdIO0rPEeLSGf4pY0UpN/dPCntSHbQHdSasPOo6GCpXGXVZeRSmx+qVEEmtslPe iZnn80Bze3g5cpfELqc45gy49EinPCk9eNCs3d9Tegr2ZEfVrJff5E5TL6NFOA0i+k3A /k1A4whSzG9d/0X9gc9AYq547zLY2ObqvXA1Q= 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; b=r1WwFC+WAcIuG98WQ1KsMEsJ5pLxnAVnwDdrkO0z56iYXwsDeIEWi+a1907Huh4VrL 1+VcwAygd0anAcmKC3ic45WBSq6VjY1rProQcCGxlmwQy4gRV9lsn0Nggh/xes5bxPxZ RR5wgp6XTAPwzvNAybLy1+Lc+RFwouMANeXH0= Received: by 10.142.247.8 with SMTP id u8mr187606wfh.13.1275512319311; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 13:58:39 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.142.8.28 with SMTP id 28ls3924154wfh.0.p; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 13:58:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.202.11 with SMTP id z11mr2340610wff.47.1275512317605; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 13:58:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.202.11 with SMTP id z11mr2340607wff.47.1275512316473; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 13:58:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f182.google.com (mail-pz0-f182.google.com [209.85.222.182]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 18si1285483pzk.14.2010.06.02.13.58.35; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 13:58:35 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.222.182 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.222.182; Received: by pzk12 with SMTP id 12so3863934pzk.9 for ; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 13:58:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.141.105.20 with SMTP id h20mr7058665rvm.163.1275512315184; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 13:58:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.73.12 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Jun 2010 13:58:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <14b2f66c-d858-4409-af97-0cd2bd7e049e@z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com> References: <556832.6378.qm@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <959500ee-ea4d-4acf-9353-f2c990ba25a7@t34g2000prd.googlegroups.com> <676f1fae-2f5a-4609-8727-49c9083a8715@h20g2000prn.googlegroups.com> <14b2f66c-d858-4409-af97-0cd2bd7e049e@z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 16:58:34 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Named multiples From: Luke Bergen To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.222.182 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lukeabergen@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: lukeabergen@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: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd13b167406fd0488125a13 --000e0cd13b167406fd0488125a13 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Is it unreasonable to say that {coi pendo} = {coi la pendo} but that {la pendo} does not necessarily mean that "pendo" is the persons legal name, but rather just what I am calling them. "buddy" is an actual person's name but it's also a generic word like "friend" when used in greetings. So if someone comes up to me and says "hey buddy" I don't correct him and say "no, my name is luke" I just assume that that's what he's choosing to reference me as, and that's really all that names are anyway. On the other hand, if someone comes up to me and says "hey ugly" I again would not correct them about my name. I would just assume that they are choosing to reference me by the string of sounds "ugly" because they believe it to be a useful reference to me by way of the semantic information contained in the string (the jerks). tldr; my vote: {coi pendo} = {coi la pendo} = {coi la'e lo'u pendo le'u} since {la} just means "the referent of the string of sounds that follow". Let context determine whether that string of sounds contains semantic information or is just a bunch of random sounds. On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Lindar wrote: > > I often use "doi pendo", "doi dirba", "doi patfu", etc with no "la" > implied. > > Hm. Well, maybe it should be the other way, then? > > > I think "coi xalbo" could be "coi la xalbo" or "coi lo xalbo" > > depending on context, no need to rule either out. You can always use > > the gadri explicitly if confusion is possible or likely. > > I don't like that idea. It seems like that is precisely what Lojban is > trying to avoid. Isn't Lojban supposed to be "completely regular and > without exception"? > Either way, I do not at all like the idea of leaving it up to context. > It needs to be one or the other. Having both be {la} is more > consistent, having selbri imply {le} makes more sense. > > -- > 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@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. > > -- 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@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. --000e0cd13b167406fd0488125a13 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Is it unreasonable to say that {coi pendo} =3D {coi la pendo} but that {la = pendo} does not=A0necessarily=A0mean that "pendo" is the persons = legal name, but rather just what I am calling them.

&quo= t;buddy" is an actual person's name but it's also a generic wo= rd like "friend" when used in greetings. =A0So if someone comes u= p to me and says "hey buddy" I don't correct him and say &quo= t;no, my name is luke" I just assume that that's what he's cho= osing to reference me as, and that's really all that names are anyway. = =A0

On the other hand, if someone comes up to me and says &= quot;hey ugly" I again would not correct them about my name. =A0I woul= d just assume that they are choosing to reference me by the string of sound= s "ugly" because they believe it to be a useful reference to me b= y way of the semantic information contained in the string (the jerks).

tldr; my vote: {coi pendo} =3D {coi la pendo} =3D {coi = la'e lo'u pendo le'u} since {la} just means "the referent = of the string of sounds that follow". =A0Let context determine whether= that string of sounds contains=A0semantic=A0information or is just a bunch= of random sounds.


On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 4= :37 PM, Lindar <lindarthebard@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I often use "doi pendo", "doi dirba&q= uot;, "doi patfu", etc with no "la" implied.

Hm. Well, maybe it should be the other way, then?

> I think "coi xalbo" could be "coi la xalbo" or &qu= ot;coi lo xalbo"
> depending on context, no need to rule either out. You can always use > the gadri explicitly if confusion is possible or likely.

I don't like that idea. It seems like that is precisely what Lojb= an is
trying to avoid. Isn't Lojban supposed to be "completely regular a= nd
without exception"?
Either way, I do not at all like the idea of leaving it up to context.
It needs to be one or the other. Having both be {la} is more
consistent, having selbri imply {le} makes more sense.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.


--
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.
--000e0cd13b167406fd0488125a13--