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

[Remo Dentato <rdentato@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:

> "da", "de", and "di" all mean the same except that they're different
> variables. If you want to be context dependent, you can say "ro zo'e".
Yes, {da} {de} and {di} are the same at the moment. My suggestion was
that if we really really want to make one of them having the same
meaning as $\forall x$ we could use {rodi}.  I can't remember reading
anything with {de} in and I would bet that there's no trace of {di}
anywhere in the corpus of lojban texts. Well, except when talking
about {di} itself :).

> I think that your "is specified by the context of the discussion" means the
> same as my "universe of discourse". For example, if Matthew 14:20 said "ro da
> citka gi'e tolxagjybi'o", I would understand that the people, the bread, the
> fish, the boat, the sea, and maybe even John the Baptist's head all ate and
> were satisfied, but not the earth's core or the star Sirius. Is that what you
> meant?

Yes, in that case, I would hardly understand {da} to include the
bread, the boat and the sea. And certainly not the head of John the
Baptist. But I would get that "everything we were talking about that
could eat and could be satisfied, it was".

So an unbound {da} to me, is referring to everything we were talking
about and could reasonably fill the {da} place.

-- 
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.