Message-ID: <44B7AB37.60705@bcpl.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:33:27 -0400
From: Michael Turniansky <turnip@bcpl.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To:  lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Once again about le and lo
References: <44A2CAB7.4090807@mail.ru>
In-Reply-To: <44A2CAB7.4090807@mail.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Content-Length: 1266


Dmitry wrote:

> Please help me to check myself.
>
> Assume following two utterances:
> 1) .i lo ratcu cu citka le cirla
> 2) .i le ratcu cu citka le cirla .ije ra ratcu
>
> Are (1) and (2) equivalent?

  No.  The first asserts that there are some real rats that eat 
cheese.~= to the English sentence "Rats eat cheese"
  The second asserts that the thing(s) you describe as a rat(/rats)  
eats(/eat) cheese, and in fact really is(/are) rat(s).  This is 
referring to a SPECIFIC set of rats you have in mind.~= to the English 
sentence "The rats eat cheese"


>
> Actually, before writing the message I thought that they are. But now, I
> think it is not so, because of implicit quantifiers.
>
> Now consider following utterance
> 3) .i su'o lo ratcu cu citka le cirla

  This means at least one rat in the world that eats cheese. It's 
equivalent to (1) ("lo" has a implicit "su'o" preceding it unless 
overridden)

>
> Is it equivalent to (2)? I believe, it should.
>
>
> PS Sorry for sending it to main Lojban list, it was unintentional 
> mistake. Of couse, this message is for beginners list.
>
      I consider myself only a beginner, too, so if any expert out there 
disagrees with my translations, please correct me.

                        --gejyspa