Subject: Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:03:29 +0000

>>> Rob Speer <[email-masked]> 10/29/01 12:15am >>>
#On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 07:09:49PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
#> I don't remember the logic of zu'i ever having been explored; which category is
#> zu'i typical relative to? The selbri, regardless of the sumti? Or to the
#> whole local bridi? Or to the whole sentence? Or to the whole local bridi
#> following the zu'i, or what? And what do quantifications of zu'i mean?
#
#In {reda cu kanla mi}, I feel the {da} is unnecessary because of the way
#it assigns {da}, which could lead to running out of da/de/di if used too
#much.

True. But this is a problem with saying "da" when we mean "da", rather 
than of saying "da" when we mean "zu'i", which is what you'd spoken of.

I agree that the shortage and nonmnemonicality of da-series KOhA is
a problem. The shortage is remedied by xi subscripted. The 
nonmnemonicality is remedied by experimental cmavo {da'ai}.

To some extent, when Lojban makes it clunky to say X, we have to find 
or invent new better ways to say X, not just simply say Y instead.

#I thought of {rezo'e kanla mi}, but quantifying {zo'e} doesn't seem
#right to me, and it just says that two things are my eyes. This sounded
#too general to me - 

I have no idea what "re zo'e" would mean. 

#I want to say that they are not two arbitrary
#objects but two ordinary eyes. 

I understand. But you are saying that they're eyes, because they're
in x1 of kanla. Can you think of a sentence/context where "re kanla cu 
kanla" would not have exactly the same truthconditions as "re da cu kanla"?

#For example, if {ko'a} is someone with
#one eye, then {rezo'e kanla ko'a} if, say, one {zo'e} is the retina and
#the other {zo'e} is the rest of the eye.
#
#Hence I decided on {zu'i}.
#
#I think the logic of {zu'i} might tie into {lo'e} - {rezu'i kanla mi}
#could be {re lo'e kanla cu kanla mi}.

Not to say that this is gobbledygook, but it seems so to me. {re zu'i}
and {re lo'e} seem as nonsensical as {re li}.

#> At any rate, I'd like to see some examples with bogus da, because I'm not aware
#> of any. "da" does mean nonspecific something/someone.
#
#Is it not true that if you use {da} in one sentence and again in
#another, without using {da'o}, it refers to the same thing?
#
#For example, is this correct?
#{.i reda cu kanla mi .i da blanu}

Yes. When you reuse "da" without rebinding it, it would translate into English
as "it", not as "something".

We'd better say that "something" = "su'o da da'o", and that "da" = "something"
only when "da" = "su'o da da'o". However, in "re da kanla mi", "da" is
equivalent to "su'o da da'o".

--And.