Subject: Re:[lojban] Re: I like chocolate

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:59:24 EDT

by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Sep 2002 12:12:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-7.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.107)
by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Sep 2002 12:12:10 -0000
Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-68-189.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.68.189])
by mailbox-7.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 74F4B272E7
for <[email-masked]>; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:12:07 +0200 (DST)
To: <[email-masked]>
Importance: Normal
From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Mailing-List: list [email-masked]; contact [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 13:13:43 +0100
Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate

XORXES:
> I mean "I like chocolate", "that is like a sofa" and "that is a
> picture of a boa". They don't mean "there ia some chocolate such
> that I like it", "there is some sofa such that that is like it"
> or "there is some boa such that that is a picture of it". To get
> those latter meanings I would have to use {lo} instead of {lo'e}.
> 
> I'm not sure why paradigm cases need to be in x1, but here are
> some: {lo'e cinfo cu xabju le friko} "Lions live in Africa",
> which is different from "some lions live in africa" (lo),
> "all lions live in Africa" (ro), "most lions live in Africa" (so'e).
> {lo'e mlatu cu kavbu lo'e smacu", "Cats catch mice", which is
> different from saying that "some cats catch some mice", etc.

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.

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.

Excuse my having read this previous thread in only a desultory
way -- I read your summary postings assiduously, but keeping
track of the debates with pc I find very wearing.

> Unfortunately we don't have the la-version of lo'e:
> lo le la
> lo'e le'e ??
> 
> But we can use {lo'e me la santas}.

If you really wanted to fill the gap you could pick a spare
cmavo -- {lai'e}, say.

But I would rather abolish lo'e/le'e. Any cmavo about whose 
meaning there is virtually nil consensus, even after years
upon years of discussion, should be binned.

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.

--And.

To unsubscribe, send mail to [email-masked] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/