From rob@twcny.rr.com Sun Oct 28 00:54:34 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 28 Oct 2001 07:54:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 47723 invoked from network); 28 Oct 2001 07:54:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Oct 2001 07:54:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout5.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.169) by mta3 with SMTP; 28 Oct 2001 07:54:30 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-1 [24.92.226.139]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f9S7sUh24960 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 02:54:30 -0500 (EST) 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 ; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 02:53:34 -0500 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 15xklL-0000d1-00 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 02:53:43 -0500 Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 02:53:43 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e Message-ID: <20011028025343.A2376@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: <0110271227530F.01291@neofelis> <20011027162600.A643@twcny.rr.com> <00ef01c15fac$0748a6e0$dab5003e@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <00ef01c15fac$0748a6e0$dab5003e@default> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer X-Yahoo-Profile: squeekybobo On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 12:28:19PM -0000, Adam Raizen wrote: > la rab.spir. cusku di'e > > > 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}. > > "zu'i" implies "da", doesn't it? Well, as I understand it, the thing which is unique to the da-series is that they refer to the same thing each time they are used. Hence it seems very unnecessary to me when "da" appears and is used only once. But now that I think of it, I suppose that wouldn't make a difference here. Whatever pronoun it is _is_ only used once, but the concept the sentence is trying to express maps two different instances of the pronoun to each human. Let's start discussing a sentence which is less likely to be false. How do you say "Every human has a head" without meaning that it is the same head for every human? {ro remna cu ponse pa stedu}? It would be disturbing if this didn't work... but what stops {pa stedu} from referring to the same head for every person it is had by? {pa stedu cu stedu ro remna}? {pazu'i stedu ro remna}? (My understanding of zu'i is that this is equivalent to the previous one.) {[some other prosumti] stedu ro remna}? Of course, {stedu ro remna} would work, except there's nowhere to put the number, meaning that everyone has some number of heads. This would be more significant in the example with eyes. -- la rab.spir noi zu'i stedu ke'a