From jcowan@reutershealth.com Tue Feb 26 14:26:42 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jcowan@reutershealth.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 26 Feb 2002 22:26:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 65755 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2002 22:26:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Feb 2002 22:26:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.reutershealth.com) (204.243.9.36) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Feb 2002 22:26:40 -0000 Received: from reutershealth.com (IDENT:cowan@[10.65.117.21]) by mail.reutershealth.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA08435 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 17:26:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C7C0B84.8090807@reutershealth.com> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 17:26:12 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.6) Gecko/20011120 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] go'i: repeated referents or just sumti? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: John Cowan X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=8122456 X-Yahoo-Profile: john_w_cowan EWC wrote: >>It would be >>very bad manners to use a bare {le mlatu} again for a different >>group of cats. > > As logical statements there's no requirment that the group of cats > remains the same between statements. There are just two groups each > consisting of at least one thing described as a cat. If you were a > computer interpreting those statements you couldn't assume the "all of > at least one described as cat"s were the same. Hence the bi'u attitudinal, which lets you tag a sumti as either having a new or an old referent. -- John Cowan http://www.reutershealth.com I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_