2011/2/23 Jorge Llamb=EDas <= ;jjllambias@gmail.com>

2011/2/22 Michael Turniansky <= ;mturniansky@gmail.com>:
>
> =A0 I don't understand what is so onerou= s about simply SAYING "ro le prenu" if
> that's what yo= u mean.

We were comparing "ro da" vs "ro prenu&= quot;, and my point was that the
restriction to prenu was in many contexts insignificant compared to
othe= r contextual restrictions, so "ro prenu" doesn't solve theputative problems with "ro da". English forces you to distinguis= h
"everybody" from "everything" in the same way that it f= orces you to
distinguish "he" and "she" from "i= t", Lojban doesn't.

As for "le", I don't real= ly know how it really works. Suppose you want
to say "Everybody will love your dress at the party tomorrow", bu= t I
have no idea who will be there at the party tomorrow. Can I use &quo= t;le
prenu" to refer to the people who will be at the party, even t= hough I
don't have any particular person in mind? Is "le" about parti= cular
values you have in mind or about particular restrictions you have = in
mind? I don't know. I don't think "le" is well defi= ned, so I don't use
it.

=A0

=A0 Your nonuse of "le" is well-known, but I think outside t= he bounds of the beginner's list, which this thread is on. But certainl= y, why can't "le prenu" mean, "lo prenu poi=A0ba zvati l= e tersla=A0.u lo prenu poi mi djuno lo du'u ke'a zvati le tersla&qu= ot; [(those persons that will be at the party) whether-or-not (those person= s I know will be at the party)]?=A0 That's the way I'm defining le = to refer to in this instance.=A0 I may not people to enumerate who they are= , but I can still (mentally) refer to them as "whoever will be at the = party".=A0 That's the whole point of "le".=A0=A0It basic= ally screams "context dependant".

> You are arbitrarily restricting it to mean exacl= ty
> whatever it is you think it should be retricted, and explicitly = saying so.
> So instead of the listener having to ponder, "Oh, I= wonder if the speaker is
> really intended to mean everything, or if he is intending to restrict = it to
> some context, and if the latter, what context is it?"=A0= He already KNOWS the
> answer to the first part (restricted), and si= mply has to figure out the
> second part.=A0Whereas if you say "ro prenu" you mean exactl= y that -- "all
> people, everywhere"=A0 No further ponderin= g necessary.

"All people, everywhere" could be more = restricted than plain "all
people", because it excludes people that are nowhere. It may also make=
you wonder whether you also mean people of every time or whether youmean to restrict it to the present, since you went to the trouble of
specifying where but not when. I don't think "ro prenu" makes= any
reference to places, so it can't mean exactly "all people,=
everywhere".

=A0

=A0 You're=A0playing with semantics, but fine, "all people, r= eal or imagined,=A0past, present, future, multiple time frames, or in no ti= me frame whatsoever,=A0=A0existing other in someplace, more than=A0one plac= e, or no place at all".=A0 However you want to put it, or not, you are= PRECISELY making my point.=A0 If I qualify it, I restrict it.=A0 Contrariw= ise, if I DON'T=A0qualify it,=A0it must be completely unrestricted.=A0 = QED.=A0"ro prenu" is more qualified, and hence more restrictive t= han "ro da".=A0 "ro le prenu" is even more qualified, a= nd more importnantly, precisly so, to a given set of people, which=A0the sp= eaker=A0may or may not be aware of exactly who is in that set, but can know= for a certainity it doesn't include anyone outside of who it intends t= o include.

=A0

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 --gejyspa

=A0