From pycyn@aol.com Fri Sep 13 09:59:34 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 13 Sep 2002 16:59:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 49757 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2002 16:59:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Sep 2002 16:59:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r05.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.101) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Sep 2002 16:59:34 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.71.25778b7c (4320) for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:59:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <71.25778b7c.2ab3736f@aol.com> Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:59:27 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_71.25778b7c.2ab3736f_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_71.25778b7c.2ab3736f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/13/2002 8:16:49 AM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: << > "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 >> Strictly, fronting brings the {lo ...} to topic position, but the point is the same: it's what we are talking about. Whence (though I couldn't formulate it then) x1 senntences being paradigms of talking about. << . 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}. >> Cant be expressed *as* {lo/le broda} for sure. But the ultimate unpacking will almost surely involve both expressions of that form and intensional contexts. So, stop with the {zi'o} examples finally. They just don't fit the case in any way, shape, or form. << 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}. >> I agree with you about the value of the discussion -- now that it is, I think, almost at an end (I admit I had my doubts in the middle when we seemed to be going around in ruts). And I agree with your summary position. All I need now is to learn just how your {lo'e} differs from "the typical." "The generic" doesn't help much (and is &'s, not yours, so far as I can see). --part1_71.25778b7c.2ab3736f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/13/2002 8:16:49 AM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

<<

"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 thin

k
>>
Strictly, fronting brings the {lo ...} to topic position, but the point is the same: it's what we are talking about. Whence (though I couldn't formulate it then) x1 senntences being paradigms of talking about.

<<
. 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}.
>>
Cant be expressed *as* {lo/le broda} for sure. But the ultimate unpacking will almost surely involve both expressions of that form and intensional contexts. So, stop with the {zi'o} examples finally. They just don't fit the case in any way, shape, or form.

<<
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}.
>>
I agree with you about the value of the discussion -- now that it is, I think, almost at an end (I admit I had my doubts in the middle when we seemed to be going around in ruts). And I agree with your summary position. All I need now is to learn just how your {lo'e} differs from "the typical." "The generic" doesn't help much (and is &'s, not yours, so far as I can see). --part1_71.25778b7c.2ab3736f_boundary--