From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Fri Sep 13 15:21:34 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 13 Sep 2002 22:21:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 74473 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2002 22:21:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Sep 2002 22:21:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-2.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.102) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Sep 2002 22:21:32 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-68-105.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.68.105]) by mailbox-2.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 61CE818FCF for ; Sat, 14 Sep 2002 00:21:30 +0200 (DST) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 23:23:06 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Xorxes: > 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. So how would you do "The [generic] lion lives in Africa"? > >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}. I'm not suggesting that as a satisfactory substitute for lo'e; I'm suggesting it as a way of making explicit what lo'e is short for. For instance, "ko'a cinfo" can be said as "tu'o du'u ce'u da cinfo ku ckaji ko'a" -- there you're talking about lions yet referring to the Lion intension, so it's not impossible, even if it is not the way you'd ordinarily want to express it. > >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}. OK. Once you've persuaded pc you'll have to said about persuading everyone else; it's the one xorxesism I've never bought. --And.