Because predicates in predication position are inherently veridical, else the whole system collapses. The stress on "actually" is to make the point in contrast to predicates in nominal position, where the reading depends upon the descriptor used. ( Note again:there better be a very good reason for using {le broda} for a non-broda.)
Sent from my iPad You've said: now it means "something(s) which actually are broda". My translation of {zo'e noi broda} is: "something, which are broda". Where did you get "actually"??? On Monday, June 24, 2013 5:24:16 PM UTC+6, aionys wrote:
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Анатолий Гашев <volis...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: "which has now been accepted by a vote of 11 to 0 by the BPFK, although
it is technically subject to future changes until we declare ourselves
done".
And if you're right about xorlo then why does {lo}-entry contains old version (veridical one)?
Because xorlo doesn't change the fact that lo is the veridical article and le is the non-veridical one.
And if you think that "veridical" is the right and from xorlo-update, then where "veridical" word in in-xorlo {lo} definition?
Nowhere, because xorlo only describes the /changes/ it makes.
And why then {lo}-entry says underneath "Under the xorlo reform, lo converts a selbri to a sumti in a rather generic way. In particular, lo broda = zo'e noi broda.". Simply to repeat???
Because pre-xorlo {lo} had default quantifiers. {lo broda} /used/ to mean "at least one of all existing things which actually are broda", now it means "something(s) which actually are broda"
On Monday, June 24, 2013 3:44:06 PM UTC+6, aionys wrote:
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:41 AM, Анатолий Гашев <volis...@gmail.com> wrote:
Only CLL is official, all the rest are just propositions. Quote from here: http://www.lojban.org/tiki/How+to+use+xorlo
""xorlo" is our (the baupla fuzykamni's) pet name for the gadri (articles, like "the" and "a" in English) BPFK proposal written mostly by xorxes."
or from here: http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+gadri
Title says: "Proposed definitions".
If you can read...
From the /exact/ /same/ /page/: " The gadri proposal (which has now been accepted by a vote of 11 to 0 by the BPFK"
xorlo was unanimously made official by the BPFK way back in 2004. And stop being a dick.
On Monday, June 24, 2013 3:32:58 PM UTC+6, aionys wrote:
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:28 AM, Анатолий Гашев <volis...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dictionary entry about {lo} shows CLL version (which has official, but old meaning) of {lo}. And noted how under xorlo reform {lo} is understood now: lo broda = zo'e noi broda. That's new.
Also new definition see here: http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+gadri
Dictionaries prefer to stick rather to official version (in CLL), but offer a hand to whomever wants to know more of new changes made in Lojban.
No one forces you to abandon the official way of understanding {gadri}-meaning.
But if you want to know more of post-CLL changes to Lojban...
The "xorlo version" /IS/ the official version.
On Monday, June 24, 2013 3:05:42 PM UTC+6, aionys wrote:
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:57 AM, Анатолий Гашев <volis...@gmail.com> wrote:
Here is new definition:
- lo (LE)
- Generic article. It converts a
selbri, selecting its first argument, into a sumti. The resulting
_expression_ refers generically to any or some individual or individuals
that fit as the first argument of the selbri. An inner quantifier can be
used to indicate the number of individuals. An outer quantifier can be
used to quantify distributively over such individuals.
- (Source: http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+gadri)
Where did you find the word "veridical"?
понедельник, 24 июня 2013 г., 3:02:39 UTC+6 пользователь aionys написал:
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Анатолий Гашев <volis...@gmail.com> wrote:
Using here {le nanmu} is not better and actually it might be wrong. Cuz it may be that I just now saw a woman, which I described as a man and I think the person is a man.
He/she has not any specific meaning for me at all that is why I called him/her {lo nanmu}, but not {le ninmu}.
Please, everybody, read xorlo-update already cuz the {lo}-meaning has changed dramatically since CLL, which is dated by 1997.
Lookup the meaning of the word "veridical". {lo} is and /always has been/ veridical- it must and can only be used for things which /actually are/ what you're describing them as. {le} is and /always has been/ non-veridical.
xorlo did not change the meaning of {lo} or {le}, it just changed how quantification works.
воскресенье, 23 июня 2013 г., 18:18:40 UTC+6 пользователь v4hn написал:
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 03:21:50AM -0700, Анатолий Гашев wrote:
> I may call a woman with {lo nanmu} if I think the person is a man.
> You can ask about that almost anybody, especially la tsani or la selpa'i.
> And they can say am I right or not.
Yes, you can do that. Obviously. How else would you describe someone
who seems to be a man?
Nevertheless, you say something ba'e wrong then.
Using {le nanmu} (which in my opinion is better style anyway when you
have someone specific in mind) you do not, because you refer to
a specific individual no matter the description.
v4hn
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
--
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 )
--
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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
|