In a message dated 7/24/2002 7:28:05 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: << > >{na'ebo le broda}>> I'm not sure that the definiteness of {le} is any more significant here than elsewhere, the indefiniteness of the first sumti is a result of the assumed {su'o} on {na'ebo} sumti and the fact that "other than" gets dealt with using identities, not categorical predicates: "something that is not identical with x" [x the designated object referred to by the {le} expression -- keeping it simple for the moment]. The {lo} case is surely equally indefinite: {na'ebo lo broda} refers to something that is not a broda -- or not some specific broda; {lo na'e broda} also refers to something that is not a broda -- without the other possibility. The suggested reading of {na'ebo lo broda} seems unlikely (as the first seems redundant). It seems to involve an intermediate selection process or to dissolve (so lng as there are two brodas) into vacuity. If we pick the avoided group before hand, { da poi broda zo'u ge de na du da gi de co'e} [for the simple case, again] then it becomes definite in the context of the specification of the {na'ebo} sumti -- and, of course, the quantifiers get crossed. Which may or may not be a problem. On the other hand, {da de poi broda zo'u ge da na du de gi da co'e}, for whatever {da} is there is always a broda that is other than it, so long as there are at least two brodas. Neither of these seems to make Lojbanic sense, so the earlier interpretation, which leaves both {na'ebo lo broda} and {lo na'e broda} essentially the same sounds more likely. But that does mean that both are equipollent to {na'ebo ro broda}, under again the most reasonable interpretation.
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. |