From pycyn@aol.com Thu Jul 25 09:56:33 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 25 Jul 2002 16:56:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 87161 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2002 16:56:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Jul 2002 16:56:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m05.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.8) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Jul 2002 16:56:32 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.21.) id 6.92.2954aff7 (3956) for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 12:56:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <92.2954aff7.2a7187bb@aol.com> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 12:56:27 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] na'ebo To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_92.2954aff7.2a7187bb_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_92.2954aff7.2a7187bb_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/24/2002 7:28:05 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: << > > >{na'ebo le broda} > > >{le na'e broda} > > The significant difference between those two comes from > the definiteness of {le}, which makes the second definite > while the first is indefinite. > > I wonder whether there's a difference between {na'ebo lo broda} > and {lo na'e broda}. > > Is a dog {na'ebo lo gerku}, on the grounds that it is other > than some (other) dog? In that case, {lo na'e broda} would > be equivalent to {na'ebo ro broda}. > >> I'm not sure that the definiteness of {le} is any more significant here than elsewhere, the indefiniteness of the first sumti is a result of the assumed {su'o} on {na'ebo} sumti and the fact that "other than" gets dealt with using identities, not categorical predicates: "something that is not identical with x" [x the designated object referred to by the {le} expression -- keeping it simple for the moment]. The {lo} case is surely equally indefinite: {na'ebo lo broda} refers to something that is not a broda -- or not some specific broda; {lo na'e broda} also refers to something that is not a broda -- without the other possibility. The suggested reading of {na'ebo lo broda} seems unlikely (as the first seems redundant). It seems to involve an intermediate selection process or to dissolve (so lng as there are two brodas) into vacuity. If we pick the avoided group before hand, { da poi broda zo'u ge de na du da gi de co'e} [for the simple case, again] then it becomes definite in the context of the specification of the {na'ebo} sumti -- and, of course, the quantifiers get crossed. Which may or may not be a problem. On the other hand, {da de poi broda zo'u ge da na du de gi da co'e}, for whatever {da} is there is always a broda that is other than it, so long as there are at least two brodas. Neither of these seems to make Lojbanic sense, so the earlier interpretation, which leaves both {na'ebo lo broda} and {lo na'e broda} essentially the same sounds more likely. But that does mean that both are equipollent to {na'ebo ro broda}, under again the most reasonable interpretation. --part1_92.2954aff7.2a7187bb_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/24/2002 7:28:05 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

<<
> >{na'ebo le broda}
> >{le na'e broda}

The significant difference between those two comes from
the definiteness of {le}, which makes the second definite
while the first is indefinite.

I wonder whether there's a difference between {na'ebo lo broda}
and {lo na'e broda}.

Is a dog {na'ebo lo gerku}, on the grounds that it is other
than some (other) dog? In that case, {lo na'e broda} would
be equivalent to {na'ebo ro broda}.
>>

I'm not sure that the definiteness of {le} is any more significant here than elsewhere, the indefiniteness of the first sumti is a result of the assumed {su'o} on {na'ebo} sumti and the fact that "other than" gets dealt with using identities, not categorical predicates: "something that is not identical with x" [x the designated object referred to by the {le} expression -- keeping it simple for the moment].  The {lo} case is surely equally indefinite:  {na'ebo lo broda} refers to something that is not a broda -- or not some specific broda; {lo na'e broda} also refers to something that is not a broda -- without the other possibility. 
The suggested reading of {na'ebo lo broda} seems unlikely (as the first seems redundant).  It seems to involve an intermediate selection process or to dissolve (so lng as there are two brodas) into vacuity.  If we pick the avoided group before hand,
{ da poi broda zo'u ge de na du da gi de co'e} [for the simple case, again] then it becomes definite in the context of the specification of the {na'ebo} sumti -- and, of course, the quantifiers get crossed.  Which may or may not be a problem.  On the other hand, {da de poi broda zo'u ge da na du de gi da co'e}, for whatever {da} is there is always a broda that is other than it, so long as there are at least two brodas. Neither of these seems to make Lojbanic sense, so the earlier interpretation, which leaves both {na'ebo lo broda} and {lo na'e broda} essentially the same sounds more likely.  But that does mean that both are equipollent to {na'ebo ro broda}, under again the most reasonable interpretation.

 --part1_92.2954aff7.2a7187bb_boundary--