From rob@twcny.rr.com Sat Oct 27 13:26:49 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 27 Oct 2001 20:26:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 85947 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2001 20:26:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.1.224 with QMQP; 27 Oct 2001 20:26:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout6.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.125) by mta2 with SMTP; 27 Oct 2001 20:26:48 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-1 [24.92.226.139]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f9RKPqF15311 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 16:25:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from riff ([24.92.246.4]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 16:25:51 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 15xa1o-0000Ac-00 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 16:26:00 -0400 Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 16:26:00 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e Message-ID: <20011027162600.A643@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: <0110271227530F.01291@neofelis> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0110271227530F.01291@neofelis> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer X-Yahoo-Profile: squeekybobo On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 12:27:53PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote: > {reda kanla lo'e remna} sounds not quite right - it should be {lo'e remna cu > se kanla reda}. Those mean the same thing. > {reda kanla ro remna} is definitely false, even if there were > not blind people - it means that everyone shares two eyes! Very good point - however, I think this is not the fault of {ro}, but of {da}. The first version could just as easily have been said with {rezu'i kanla lo'e remna}. Similarly, if you wanted to forget the existence of blind people, you should say {rezu'i kanla ro remna}. I think the misuse of {da} to mean "something", without considering the logical implications, is much more dangerous than using the wrong article. I'd say about half the time someone says {da} they really mean {zu'i}. -- la rab.spir noi sarji zo gumri