Re: [lojban-beginners] Question about {roda}

[Remo Dentato <rdentato@gmail.com>]

I agree that {da} should be interpreted according to the context if it's not specifically bound.

To me {roda plise}  is {roda poi co'e cu plise} that could be {roda poi do viska cu plise} or {roda poi mi citka cu plise} depending on what we are talking about.   It *might* be  {roda poi zasti cu plise} in the sense that "everything that exists in the universe is an apple" but I don't see the usefulness of requiring that this is the only possible interpretation. And also consider that having not specified x2 and x3 for {zasti} the sentence is *still*  ambiguous , 

It seems to me that semantic ambiguity has bee introduced in lojban for a very good reason: making it usable for human communication. IMHO, reducing Lojban to a mere form of logic makes it less useful for this purpose.

If I wanted to be more formal I would have bound {da}. If I haven't done it I might have a reason to do so.

I use to say that Lojban is a language where I can be as precise and as vague as I *want*, please do not take this liberty away from me!

remod

On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 1:48 AM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm siding with the context side on this one. Considering how often and how much we Lojbanists typically leave up to context, I don't see any reason why {roda} can't either. And no, {la.lojban. logji} isn't. {la.lojban. na logji .iku'i lo gerna po'e la.lojban. ba'e logji}

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.