[lojban] Re: Again {lo}.

[John E Clifford <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

Unfortunately, it can be argued that {lo'e} means
something different from the generalization that
was intended using {lo}.  Just what the
difference is is not too clear, though {le'e}
pretty clearly brings in a subjective factor
absent from the others.

--- robin <robin@bilkent.edu.tr> wrote:
> Jorge Llambías wrote:
> > 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".
> > 
> 
> It's a possible translation, but I still think
> {lo'e} is a better one. 
> Using {lo} is even more ambiguous with the BPFK
> sense. Besides, {lo'e} 
> and {le'e} are such cute articles, it's a shame
> not to use them! I think 
> {lo'e} is particularly useful for this kind of
> adage.
> 
> robin.tr
> 
> 
> 
>