On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Michael Turniansky <<= a href=3D"mailto:mturniansky@gmail.com">mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm sorry, but I'm with Lindar here.=A0 If yo= u want to say "I see two animals (not mammals, Lindar, that would be m= abru).=A0 All are dogs", that would be "mi viska re danlu .i ro r= i gerku" OR "...ro dy gerku"=A0 OR "...ro lo se go'= i cu gerku".=A0 But to introduce "da", which was not context= ualized before, you are only saying that everything is a dog.=A0 We have lo= ts of ways to say "all of {something}"=A0 we don't need anoth= er, and certainly not co-opting one that already HAS a meaning.=A0 Now, if = you WANTED to use da, you could do it like this: mi viska re da poi danlu .= i ro da gerku".=A0 that DOES work, because now we are binding "da= " to the universe of the two things that I see.

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

=A0

On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 2:46 AM, <rdentato@gma= il.com> wrote:

On Feb 25, 2011 8:01am, Lindar <lindarthebard@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Th= ey seem like nearly unrelated comments, and it doesn't really make sens= e. I mean, you could say, "I see two mammals. Everything is a dog.&quo= t; but it doesn't make any more sense it English. That's not how it= would be used. I actually find it useful in conversation to have {ro da po= i prenu} mean literally absolutely all people. {ro lo ro prenu} seems to be= nearly identical in meaning.

Well, you are the native English speaker, not me, but translating= literally from Lojban to English to make your point seems unfair to me. Tr= anslating {roda} with "everything" is extremely unfair, you shoul= d have said at least "all X". "I see two animals. All are do= gs" is just as valid literal translations as yours and, please, tell m= e that in English you see them as two unrelated sentences. In Italian, &quo= t;Vedo due animali. Tutti cani." is a literal translation that is also= absolutely comprehensible. I think those who know other Latin based langua= ges have similar examples.

I made this point already. Our projection of Lojban speakers seems to b= e of a bunch of dumb people that cannot relate semantic elements of sentenc= es. They are supposed to infer the right meaning of abstractions, of gismu = that have extremely broad meaning, of lujvo that can be created on the spot= and so on, but when they see {roda} they stop, look blindly and see two un= related sentences not being able to relate an unbound {da} to what has alre= ady been said.

I guess I had visited another region of Lojbanistan, where people can h= andle at least the same level of semantic ambiguity of other natural langua= ges and, in addition, are able to shape their thoughts in words much more p= recisely, as they see the need. It looked a much more interesting place to = visit but your mileage may vary.

remod=20

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the G= oogle Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, = send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+un= subscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den.

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