On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Ian Johnson
<blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
To give a concrete example, consider the difference between {ci remna cu nanmu} and {ci lo remna cu nanmu}. The former says "there are exactly three humans that are male. The latter says that we're talking about some humans, three of whom are male. Note that the former is blatantly false, while the latter is true in plenty of contexts.
mu'o mi'e la latro'a
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Ian Johnson
<blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
The similarity is nearly all syntactic; the semantics are entirely different. {ci broda cu brode} is an extremely precise statement, saying that there are exactly 3 brodas that brode. {ci lo broda cu brode} is an imprecise statement, saying that there are some brodas that are relevant in context, and three of them brode. It could be that every broda brodes in the latter case, if only three brodas are contextually relevant.
mu'o mi'e la latro'a
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Jonathan Jones
<eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Ian Johnson
<blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
zo'e noi ... and da poi ... are completely and totally different. One involves context, the other doesn't (or, in some interpretations, "approximately doesn't", i.e. context can affect the universe of discourse but in any case it is "large"). Moreover, PA lo broda cu brode doesn't imply that no other broda1 brode, whereas PA broda cu brode does.
Those are two very small differences. They do not add up to "completely and totally".
Both are a variable pro-sumti with an identifying clause attached. That spells "very similar" to me.
mu'o mi'e la latro'aOn Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Jonathan Jones
<eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Jacob Errington
<nictytan@gmail.com> wrote:
pa plise = pa lo plise = "one of one or more things which actually is an apple" = an apple (as opposed to "that apple")
This was only true in pre-xorlo. Under the gadri proposal, {pa broda} -> {pa da poi ke'a broda} directly. In xorlo, {pa broda} and {pa lo broda} are thus very different.
No they aren't.
{pa lo broda} = {pa zo'e noi ke'a broda}
{pa broda} = {pa da poi ke'a broda}
{zo'e noi...} and {da poi...} are very similar in meaning. The two phrases may not be "equal", but they are certainly still equivalent.
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Pierre Abbat
<phma@bezitopo.org> wrote:
On Wednesday, December 26, 2012 19:58:05 v4hn wrote:
> The question is, what do you answer, if you _don't_ have a specific one
> (or a group of specific ones) in mind, but {lo plise} is the most specific
> thing you can say?
"lo co'e plise"? "lo nalsteci plise"?
Pierre
--
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.
.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )
--
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.
--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.
.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )
--
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.