Re: [lojban] RE: Grammar Clarifications

[John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>]

pycyn@aol.com wrote:

> Does anyone remember what RH's reasoning was?


Essentially that there was no way of representing what
"me" means now, whereas what "me" used to mean is just
"steci be" = "pertains to".


> just why has identity, of all the logical primitives, fallen
> into disfavor?


Primarily because most English uses of "be" are not identity,
so in week 1 you learn not to use identity for them, and the
real uses of identity get pushed off to much later.

> > It should be noted that they are different though in one important
> > respect: {me ko'a} means "x1 is at least one of ko'a", whereas
> > {du ko'a} means "x1 is equal to (each) ko'a". When ko'a is a
> > singleton they are about the same, when it isn't, they aren't.
>
> Is this certified?


Yes.  It is this non-singleton case that RH was concerned with.

> <IRight. {me} is the only way to incorporate the definiteness of {le}
> into the selbri.>
> mi du le morsi mlatu (but that was already mentioned) -- and, as only a
> referent of the phrase, {me} is inspecific (or indefinite or whatever). 


"mi du le morsi mlatu" means that I am the dead cat(s) in question.

"mi me le morsi mlatu" means that I am (one or more of) the dead cat(s)
in question.  (Reduces to the same thing in the singular.)

"mi steci le morsi mlatu" means that I pertain to (all of) the
dead cat(s) in question.

--
There is / one art             || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
no more / no less              || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things             || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness           \\ -- Piet Hein