On 5/27/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Does this mean what I and Robin TR said is not
true of {lo gerku}?
But you two said different things.
Robin.tr said: "{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, which is not what we want here."
pc said: "Surely, if no dog is a friend of any man, then
{le gerku cu xagai pendo lo remna} is false, so it does
indeed entail Robin Turk's claimed reading."
But the problem with Robin.tr's statement was not
what {lo gerku cu pendo lo remna} _entails_ but rather
what it _means_ in full. The question was whether or not it is
what we want here to translate "the dog is man's best friend".
Robin.tr is quite correct that {su'o lo gerku cu xagrai pendo
su'o lo remna} is a bad translation of "the dog is man's
best friend", even if the latter entails the former.
Robin.tr was assuming that {lo gerku cu xagrai pendo
lo remna} = {su'o lo gerku cu xagrai pendo su'o lo remna}.
(Not just entails but completely equivalent.)
Robin.ca correctly pointed out that with the BPFK understanding
of {lo}, {lo gerku cu xagrai pendo lo remna} is not the same
thing as {su'o lo gerku cu xagrai pendo su'o lo remna}, and that
the former, (but not the latter) is a good translation of
"the dog is man's best friend".