Re: [lojban] Update on gadri Proposal

That's the most reasonable interpretation out of context, if you mran "Generally, one picture is worth 1000 words." There is no marker of generality here, however, so it might mean "The one picture (or the two, perhaps) is worth 1000 words." and so on. But there is something odd about the generalization here, which would be absent in {lo pixra pamei ...}: the reference to a single picture singleton as a reference to the whole class of such. Just how this fits into the scheme is just not clear to me either.

From: Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, December 14, 2011 11:14:45 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Update on gadri Proposal

Okay, so it seems maybe we've made some concrete decisions here. This is good. So now, maybe someone can explain them again, because I'm not quite sure I understand the inner qualifier? For example, one of the examples on the page is lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi (One picture is worth a thousand words.). Obviously, this is quite different than pa lo pixra li'o (There is exactly a single one of the pictures under discussion that is worth one thousand words). So it seems, from the example, that "lo pa pixra" means that any generic pixra pamei is worth some generic valsi ki'omei. Is that it? Or am I once again missing subleties?

--gejyspa

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:00 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:

Well, it is often clear that lo broda is less than all the brodas we might
consider -- and often clear that it is at least all of them.

----- Original Message ----
From: Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sat, December 10, 2011 10:40:43 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Update on gadri Proposal

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 1:18 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> {PA broda} picks PA brodas out of the whole universe of discourse; {PA lo
>broda}
> picks PA brodas out of lo broda. Of course, the two piles of available brodas
> may be the same, but they need not be and often are not. If the point of the
> example was to show that {lo} made no difference, then the example should be
> done away with indeed.

OK, I removed the offending sentence, and moved the offending example,
minus "(lo)", to the section on "le".

Since we have no way of specifying or determining the domain of
discourse, I think this is a distinction that makes no difference, but
it's not worth making a fuss over.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.