From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Sat Sep 14 15:49:48 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 22:49:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 51733 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2002 22:49:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Sep 2002 22:49:48 -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 22:49:48 -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 F01903F33E for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2002 00:49:24 +0200 (DST) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 23:51:01 +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 xorexes: > la pycyn cusku di'e > > ><< > > > No, I don't think so. {ta pixra lo'e sincrboa} does not give an > > > inherent property, nor any property, of boas. It only gives a > > > property of ta. > > > >> > >No it gives a relation between ta and lo'e sincrboa on the surface. > > But only on the surface. Since {lo'e sincrboa} is not a referring > term, talking of "a relation between ta and lo'e sincrboa" doesn't > mean much, because it suggests that there are two things being > related, which is not the case. There is only one thing, ta, and > something is predicated of that thing. If you asked me out of the blue how to say "that is a picture of a boa", I'd offer {ta pixra lo ka'e sincrboa}, assuming that the possible-worlds construal of the ka'e-series cmavo, rather than the capability construal. (I.e. {lo ka'e sincrboa} = "that which in some world is a boa" & not "that which in this world is capable of being a boa".) I don't see that this would generalize to liking chocolate, but I guess I'm wondering whether {lo'e} is being used as a panacea to disparate or at least separately soluble problems. > >{zu'i} doesn't mean "the typical value in this context," it is just > >replaced > >by the typical value in this context. > > Well... I have never seen it in use, so I have started using it > to translate generic "one", as in: > > i fa'a le sirji crane zu'i na ka'e klama lo'e darno mutce > Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin... > (Going straight ahead, one can't go very far...) > > That of course is not meant to be replaced by a typical value. > (This, BTW, was not my idea. Someone else suggested it on the > wiki, and it certainly fits with my use of {lo'e}.) I admit I had understood {zu'i} as pc does. If it doesn't get used much, it would be because it could generally be left implicit (because it's guessable, or insufficiently informative). Something like "She smoked hash and he smoked zu'i[=tobacco]" would be an example of an unusual context where zu'i needs to be explicit. As for the example above, what's wrong with i fa'a le sirji crane na ku ka'e ku da klama lo'e darno mutce = i fa'a le sirji crane da na ka'e klama lo'e darno mutce = i fa'a le sirji crane no mu'ei ku da klama lo'e darno mutce = i fa'a le sirji crane da no mu'ei klama lo'e darno mutce ?