Re: [lojban] Re: Again {lo}.

[robin <robin@bilkent.edu.tr>]

Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 12:37:46PM -0400, robin wrote:
>
> > Opi Lauma wrote:
> >
> > > > For example to say that the dog is man's best friend
> > >
> > > you 
> > >
> > >
> > > > would use {lo gerku}: {lo gerku cu xagrai pendo lo remna}
> > >
> > >
> > > OK, in this example {lo gerku} means neither "all dogs" nor "some
> > > dogs", it rather means "most of dogs" isn't? Really, we can say
> > > that "the dog is man's best friend" only if MOST OF DOGS are
> > > man's best friends. Or the same {lo gerku} can be replaced here
> > > by "a typical dog" without changes in meaning, I think. So, are
> > > "most of ..." and "a typical ..." correct substitution for {lo}?
> > > If "Yes", can this interpretation be used always? By the way in
> > > English sentence "The" has been used and in lojban {lo}. Why?
> >
> > {lo gerku cu pendo lo remna} means that there is at least one dog,
> > such that it is a friend to at least one human, 
>
>
> Not under the BPFK it doesn't.
>
> Or at least, not *necessarily*.
>
> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=How%20to%20use%20xorlo
>
> In particular, {lo} can mean {lo'e}, being totally generic.

I hadn't been following the proposed changes to {lo}, but they seem 
sensible. We need something that simply says "the following is a sumti" 
in a similar way that {cu} says "the following is a selbri". I'm usually 
a conservative when it comes to baseline issues, but the baseline {lo} 
was such a monumental pain for newbies, I wouldn't mind seeing it modified.

Even though, my point above remains. Under the orthodox version of {lo}, 
{lo'e gerku cu pendo lo'e remna} implies {lo gerku cu pendo lo remna} 
but not vice versa, and the situation is unchanged with xorlo. If you 
want to say "the dog is man's best friend" and not simply "some dog(s) 
is/are some man/men's best friend(s)", then {lo'e} is the way you want 
to go.

robin.tr