From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Sat Sep 14 15:49:21 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 14 Sep 2002 22:49:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 51341 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2002 22:49:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Sep 2002 22:49:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-13.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.113) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Sep 2002 22:49:20 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-70-95.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.70.95]) by mailbox-13.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 31D403DF22 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2002 00:49:18 +0200 (DST) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 23:50:54 +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 > > >So how would you do "The [generic] lion lives in Africa"? > > I think I would say: > > lo'e cinfo cu xabju le friko > > to say that Africa has lions. I agree that {loi} would work > just as well here, and so would {lo}. Fair enough. Let me change the example: "Humans give birth to live young." The intended meaning is that this is part of what it is to be human; it is an ingredient of humanness. > Now, if the meaning is that Afrika is the only relevant place > where lions live, I would say: > > lo'e cinfu cu xabju le friko po'o > > Only Africa is inhabited by lions: The lion lives (only) in Africa. > {loi} and {lo} would not work here due to scope issues. We would > need to put {le friko po'o} in front of the {su'o} quantifier to > get the right sense: > > le friko po'o cu se xabju loi cinfo Not the meaning I was trying to get. I'll just comment (i) that I dislike using {po'o} for "only", and (ii) that I think you example should be {le friko ku po'o}. > >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. > > Ok, I think {lo'e broda} cannot be expanded in terms of > {su'o da} or {ro da}. It could be done with {zu'i poi} > but that doesn't help you. If you accept {tu'o} then it > might just be that {lo'e broda} = {tu'o lo broda}. But can it be expanded using a locution involving {tu'o du'u ce'u broda}? > >OK. Once you've persuaded pc you'll have to said about > >persuading everyone else; it's the one xorxesism I've > >never bought. > > I'm sure there were others, some which you persuaded me > to abandon. This one stands out, not just because it's currently under discussion. I actually can't think of anything else, except maybe I feel that like everybody else you overuse "le". --And.