Re: [lojban] "Any" and {ro}

[tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>]

On 28 August 2012 05:07, la gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  I don't see how xorlo -- widely appealed to but poorly understood --
>> affects this point, since it did not change the specific (or was it
>> definite?) status of { le}. The thought that {le} is somehow related to
>> attitudinals (but {lo} is not?) needs some developing to be clear.
>
> Now it's history. I guess both {lo}/{le} worked like attitudinals. But now
> {lo}={zo'e noi} so we need to find another better way of solving this
> problem.

{le} has seen ambiguous uses in veridical or non-veridical
descriptions. Pre-xorlo {le plise} could refer to something that is or
isn't really an apple. That stands to be the case today too, since its
BPFK section still has the classic example of {le ninmu}, a man who
looks like a woman. And it seems to me that either usage
(veridical/non-veridical) would concern a specific entity. The
effective differences could be summarized as follows:

lo plise = zo'e noi plise
(something that is veridically plise)

le plise = zo'e noi plise poi co'e
(something that is veridically plise and can be further specified)

le plise = zo'e voi plise poi co'e
(something that is non-veridically plise and can be further specified)

But {voi} is restrictive unlike {noi}, and I'm not entirely sure how
it would logically interact with {zo'e}.


mu'o

-- 
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.