From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sun Oct 28 08:00:13 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 28 Oct 2001 16:00:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 54193 invoked from network); 28 Oct 2001 16:00:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by 10.1.1.224 with QMQP; 28 Oct 2001 16:00:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta06-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.46) by mta3 with SMTP; 28 Oct 2001 16:00:10 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.41.7]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20011028160009.ZLJT13652.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 16:00:09 +0000 Reply-To: To: "Lojban@Yahoogroups. Com" Subject: RE: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 15:59:21 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <0110271227530F.01291@neofelis> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin pier: > On Saturday 27 October 2001 00:29, Invent Yourself wrote: > > This is what I expected, and I look forward to another go-round of the > > veridicality debate which will necessarily arise, not so I can argue a > > position but so I can re-learn the theory. The idea of "mi claxu ro > > fipybirka" is intriguing, and illustrates a place where using a logical > > language actually has an impact on usage! Usually I wonder why anyone > > bothers with the appelation of "logical", since most sentences translate > > conceptually without alteration into English. Yet here is a case where the > > simple translation "I lack every fish fin" is interesting English. > > Another construction where using a logical language impacts usage is > statements like "The aardvark is a mammal." The literal translation of this > is {le rikteropu cu mabru}; Debatable. {lo'e rikteropu cu me lo'e mabru} doesn't seem much less literal to me. > but that means that I have some aardvark in mind > (which I do not necessarily assume the speaker knows) and am asserting that > it is a mammal. The idiomatic translation is {ro rikteropu cu mabru}; > back-translated, this is "All aardvarks are mammals," which sounds like > something you'd hear in a logic class. It's actually a very good translation. "The mammal gives birth to live young" is more problematic to render with "ro". > {lo'e rikteropu cu mabru} means that > the typical aardvark is a mammal - maybe a few oddballs aren't. > > {reda kanla lo'e remna} sounds not quite right - it should be {lo'e remna cu > se kanla reda}. I definitely disagree, in the light of my recent construal of lo'e/le'e. There is only one lo'e remna, and hence it is insensitive to scope. > {reda kanla ro remna} is definitely false, even if there were > not blind people - it means that everyone shares two eyes! > > lo'e .ornitorinku na fadni mabru .ini'ibo na'o se jbena re sovda > The typical platypus is not a typical mammal because she typically lays two > eggs. I agree with all this. --And.