From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Sep 13 06:15:17 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 13 Sep 2002 13:15:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 39553 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2002 13:15:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Sep 2002 13:15:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.164) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Sep 2002 13:15:17 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 06:15:17 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 13:15:16 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 13:15:16 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Sep 2002 13:15:17.0002 (UTC) FILETIME=[9A476EA0:01C25B27] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la and cusku di'e >If, as you have been wont to say, "mi nelci lo'e cakla" etc. can >be aptly glossed as "I am a chocolate-liker", "That is a sofa- >resembler"/"That is sofa-like", "That is a boa-depicter", then "lo'e >cinfo cu xabji le friko" would be "Africa is lion-inhabited", which >seems to me not the same as "The [generic] lion lives in Africa", >though each of the two different meanings is a challenge to >express adequately in Lojban. You're right! I think this points to why the best examples of {lo'e} don't have it in x1: because in English x1 corresponds to the subject, and the subject is something about which we say something, and this is not what happens with {lo'e}. (Indeed bringing {lo} to the subject position by fronting to the prenex is the best way to show the inadequacy of {lo} in these cases.) {lo'e mlatu cu kavbu lo'e smacu} still works for "cats catch mice", as there is nothing being referred to in this case, I think. >If "tu'o du'u ce'u da cinfo" is the way to refer to the Lion >intension, I wonder if ways can be found to express all the >meanings using "tu'o du'u ce'u da cinfo" rather than "lo'e", >just for the sake of clarity. Then "lo'e" could be defined >as an abbreviation of certain more longwinded Lojban forms. I can't do that, because I don't want to refer to the Lion intension when talking about lions. I only refer to the Lion intension when talking about meanings, but that's not what we do in ordinary discourse: we use meanings, we don't talk about them. My contention is that {lo'e cinfo} cannot be expressed as {le broda} or {lo broda} for any broda, just like {zi'o} cannot be replaced by any {le broda} or {lo broda}. >A lot of your debate with pc could be avoided if you eschewed >the form {lo'e} and used an unassigned cmavo for your purposes >instead. I don't mind my debate with pc, indeed it helps me to clarify at least to myself if not to him what I mean. I think my use of {lo'e} has enough in common with the gloss "the typical" (even if it's not the perfect gloss) that I can use it. And I think it would be much harder to get anyone else to accept a new cmavo than to accept my usage of {lo'e}. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com