From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRDagP3tBBoEYffP_Q@googlegroups.com Mon May 02 16:38:21 2011 Received: from mail-vx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.220.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QH2gv-0005Pt-6V; Mon, 02 May 2011 16:38:20 -0700 Received: by vxk20 with SMTP id 20sf1836592vxk.16 for ; Mon, 02 May 2011 16:38:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pC1N5tAF6pzBFpI10pfjmCkqXCaQ4sV3dhbmlUGMadE=; b=R9i85OMgDU9ID0WWLrlkvc7s0Dcs6W+ylypaRfeohxMjvdEx0bLk82oBkNm0oLmpIk 64CgAblbY6+fBOFroEVLDYBNRwE0wNas5f4TdeVctjSdTKjrojWF1q2lj4DGVu+vEflQ D9Q96f527gJJo0cecS3Bg8u5nT1PaSRgP624M= 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-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=fzi25azVsEx17ajPEAk+74/hp8hLkR4QBZIMzwz+9rx9f+VY8yJOuEY6790tjq+mYq n/ck7SxwrtBDE5UwjLAwODjhRqMhrz803wSoANODgrI3CEBethHZxpxHKYLI9ZD4cKgm RFKZEuvyLyudk5daqFJzX8sVDcOxqv7adIPlE= Received: by 10.220.5.139 with SMTP id 11mr676696vcv.21.1304379482812; Mon, 02 May 2011 16:38:02 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.52.180.165 with SMTP id dp5ls1098880vdc.3.gmail; Mon, 02 May 2011 16:38:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.98.227 with SMTP id el3mr2860170vdb.18.1304379482204; Mon, 02 May 2011 16:38:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.98.227 with SMTP id el3mr2860169vdb.18.1304379482186; Mon, 02 May 2011 16:38:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f46.google.com (mail-vw0-f46.google.com [209.85.212.46]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dq1si75299vdb.0.2011.05.02.16.38.02 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 02 May 2011 16:38:02 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.46 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.46; Received: by vws1 with SMTP id 1so6177802vws.5 for ; Mon, 02 May 2011 16:38:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.73.164 with SMTP id m4mr8016939vdv.169.1304379481668; Mon, 02 May 2011 16:38:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.185.167 with HTTP; Mon, 2 May 2011 16:38:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 20:38:01 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] xorlo and default quantifiers From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.46 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 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 Mon, May 2, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Luke Bergen wrote: > Hmm, I understood your following statement: >> No, because "no" contains a negation. If you say "mi citka" you can't >> expect people to understand that you mean "mi na citka". Similarly, if >> you say "mi citka lo plise" you can't expect anyone to understand that >> you mean "mi citka no lo plise". > to mean that putting {no sumti} in a bridi effectively negates the selbri > such that {mi citka no plise} =3D {mi na citka ??? plise}. "mi citka no plise" is exactly equivalent to "mi na citka su'o plise". no ... =3D naku su'o ... But I never said this was equivalent to "mi na citka lo plise", Indeed I've been denying all the time that "lo"=3D"su'o". > And the general point that I was trying to make was that when we say that > {lo} has no default quantifiers what we've done is merely shifted the > assumption of what we're talking about to context. > Like you said {lo broda} =3D {zo'e noi ke'a broda}. =A0I understand {zo'e= } as > meaning "omitted sumti which you may or may not be able to pick up on fro= m > context". =A0So if I see {mi viska zo'e} I would assume something like {m= i > viska su'o zo'e}. Even if you assume that, that doesn't make them equivalent. I gave an example where the assumption would lead you astray. If I say "mi viska do" you can safely assume that "mi viska su'o da" is true. That does not make "do" equivalent to "su'o da". >=A0I certainly wouldn't assume {no} or something exotic (but > grammatical) like {ka'o}. I still don't understand why you so desperately want to assume there is some hidden quantifier there, when there is no need to. (Actually, I think I do understand why. CLL gives the impression that every sumti has to have some quantifier in front and so you are trying to force one on every sumti.) >=A0If {zo'e}=A0implicitly=A0forces a listener to make > some assumptions then so too does {lo} Some assumptions yes, but not about implicit quantifiers. 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.