From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Aug 09 15:44:01 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 9 Aug 2002 22:44:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 96382 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2002 22:44:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Aug 2002 22:44:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.231) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Aug 2002 22:44:01 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 15:44:01 -0700 Received: from 200.69.6.38 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 09 Aug 2002 22:44:00 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] x3 of dasni Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 22:44:00 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Aug 2002 22:44:01.0168 (UTC) FILETIME=[4168B100:01C23FF6] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.38] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la pycyn cusku di'e >You can't -- as you seem to do here -- have it both ways: that >the place is a null and that it is significant what go in that place. >Clearly it is not like {zi'o}, since {dasni fi l* kosta} is different from >{dasni fi l* sjkaci} (ko'd'd wear it in a different place, for one thing.) {dasni fi lo'e kosta} would be like {kostydasni}, defined as "x1 wears x2 as a coat", and {dasni fi lo'e skaci} would be like {skacydasni} defined as "x1 wears x2 as a skirt". {dasni fi zi'o} is simply "x1 wears x2". In that sense I meant them to be alike. Of course each has a different meaning. >I don't claim that he wears it as most coats, although that is probably >right >-- and the usual meaning of {lo'e} (not the Lojban-free Spanish >translation) How does Spanish enter here? Spanish works almost like English in this case, although no article is normally used for "coat": "Usa la frazada como saco". "Usa la frazada como un saco" is also possible, with a slight difference in sense. In the first case, the sense is more that the blanket is playing the role of a coat, fulfilling its function. In the second case the sense is that he wears it the way he would wear a coat. Very slight difference. But in no case is there a coat claimed to be a part of the action. >would agree with that more or less. I also don't require that there is one >particular coat that he wears it like: particular quantifiers do not >distinguish -- even in logic -- between singular and plural. But your >rhetoric relies on us finding exactly one -- which no one claimed (though >it >is implicit in some of your comments about finding it and so on). I never meant my rhetoric to rely on finding exactly one. Finding at least one is my problem. I don't think there is any coat at all to be found such that he wears the blanket as it. >If ko'a is wearing something1 as a coat, then either there is something >such >that it is a coat and ko'a is wearing something1 as it, That's the one I deny. >or else the whole is >an intentional context out of which the referent is raised (and should be >labelled {tu'a} or otherwise marked), in which case, what is involved is >still a coat but not necessarily one in this world -- a possible coat, more >or less. I guess that approaches what I mean. That's why I use {lo'e}. >The latter is yucky (though probably ultimately right -- but we >aren't clearly forced to it yet), so I'll stick with the former until a >serious problem arises. But the former, at least to me, makes little sense, because no coat is involved in the relationship. >The event of founding a nation doesn't contain the nation (though it >is usually -- not always -- contained in the nation). This is a very interesting example. It would seem (at least in English) that the event of founding a nation takes place where the founders are. Is this because the notion of nation is such a weird one (even though we're so used to it)? I guess I have to rethink things a bit. If some arguments need not be where the event takes place, can I say for example: {le nu mi punji le cukta le jubme cu cpana le jubme}: "My putting the book on the table is on the table"? mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com