From cowan@ccil.org Wed Sep 05 14:16:19 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 5 Sep 2001 21:16:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 37061 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2001 21:03:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Sep 2001 21:03:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mercury.ccil.org) (192.190.237.100) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Sep 2001 21:03:39 -0000 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 15ejpl-0008Vk-00; Wed, 05 Sep 2001 17:03:41 -0400 Subject: Re: [lojban] specificity of 'ma' In-Reply-To: from "pycyn@aol.com" at "Sep 4, 2001 09:44:37 pm" To: pycyn@aol.com Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 17:03:41 -0400 (EDT) Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan pycyn@aol.com scripsit: > > {la mo} works. But "who" doesn't insist on a name. > > Will {la mo} guarantee a name? No (for not all names are predicates). But if you want a name, *ask* for a name: ma cmene lo klama be le zarci should provoke zo djan. > and {lo} won't usually work ("a certain" is an English quantifier trick, not > specific -- or is it definite? -- outside of certain special cases -- nothing > seems to work like it in Lojban --- though I did try.) "A certain x" is +specific -definite, or lebi'unai. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org Please leave your values | Check your assumptions. In fact, at the front desk. | check your assumptions at the door. --sign in Paris hotel | --Miles Vorkosigan