From pycyn@aol.com Thu Sep 19 12:53:33 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 19 Sep 2002 19:53:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 72957 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2002 19:53:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Sep 2002 19:53:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d07.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.39) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Sep 2002 19:53:32 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.125.16ccac89 (4584) for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 15:52:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <125.16ccac89.2abb8510@aol.com> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 15:52:48 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_125.16ccac89.2abb8510_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_125.16ccac89.2abb8510_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/19/2002 9:39:55 AM Central Daylight Time, nessus@free.fr writes: << > err, but then I can use {pa broda} which the book says is syntactically > the same as {lo pa broda}, and get only one marker >> The book had better say {pa broda} is the same as {pa lo broda}, NOT {lo pa broda}. << I agree that in this case, all these amount to the same thing, but: >> Yes, there are often practical reasons for using one rather than the other (never for {tu'o} so far as I can tell). I was just talking about the truth conditions. &: << There is a difference between claiming something and implying something. This shows up, for example, if the whole sentence is negated. >> Does this mean that {tu'o broda cu brode} and {tu'o broda na brode} both imply that there is only one broda, while {pa broda cu brode} does and {pa broda na brode} does not. That, if true, would be a reason for using {tu'o}. I can't think of any reason to think it is true in Lojban (but then, I have no idea what {tu'o} means in Lojban). --part1_125.16ccac89.2abb8510_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/19/2002 9:39:55 AM Central Daylight Time, nessus@free.fr writes:

<<
err,  but then I can use {pa broda} which the book says is syntactically
the same as {lo pa broda}, and get only one marker

>>
The book had better say {pa broda} is the same as {pa lo broda}, NOT {lo pa broda}.

<<
I agree that in this case, all these amount to the same thing, but:
>>
Yes, there are often practical reasons for using one rather than the other (never for {tu'o} so far as I can tell).  I was just talking about the truth conditions.

&:
<<
There is a difference between claiming something and implying something.
This shows up, for example, if the whole sentence is negated.
>>
Does this mean that {tu'o broda cu brode} and {tu'o broda na brode} both imply that there is only one broda, while {pa broda cu brode} does and {pa broda na brode} does not.  That, if true, would be a reason for using {tu'o}.  I can't think of any reason to think it is true in Lojban (but then, I have no idea what {tu'o} means in Lojban). --part1_125.16ccac89.2abb8510_boundary--