From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Mon Oct 29 08:53:10 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 29 Oct 2001 16:53:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 44508 invoked from network); 29 Oct 2001 16:53:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Oct 2001 16:53:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Oct 2001 16:53:09 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Mon, 29 Oct 2001 16:29:39 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:04:02 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:03:29 +0000 To: rob , lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin >>> Rob Speer 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 cate= gory 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=20 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=20 nonmnemonicality is remedied by experimental cmavo {da'ai}. To some extent, when Lojban makes it clunky to say X, we have to find=20 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 -=20 I have no idea what "re zo'e" would mean.=20 #I want to say that they are not two arbitrary #objects but two ordinary eyes.=20 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=20 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 no= t 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 Engl= ish as "it", not as "something". We'd better say that "something" =3D "su'o da da'o", and that "da" =3D "som= ething" only when "da" =3D "su'o da da'o". However, in "re da kanla mi", "da" is equivalent to "su'o da da'o". --And.