From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Fri Sep 20 14:33:52 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 20 Sep 2002 21:33:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 71311 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2002 21:33:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Sep 2002 21:33:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-12.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.112) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Sep 2002 21:33:46 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-71-164.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.71.164]) by mailbox-12.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with SMTP id CCBB55C8C6 for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 23:33:44 +0200 (DST) To: "lojban" Subject: RE: [lojban] tu'o usage Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 22:35:24 +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: <00cb01c25ff7$7eba61e0$1eeef8c1@ftiq2awxk6> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Lionel: > And: > > > err, but then I can use {pa broda} which the book says is syntactically > > > the same as {lo pa broda}, > > > > This is incorrect. {pa broda} = {pa lo su'o broda}. > > Sorry I made a mistake, but I also disagree. > {pa broda} is actually the same as {pa lo ro broda} which can be simplified > in {pa lo broda}. I don't see a difference between {pa lo su'o} and {pa lo ro}. What am I missing? > Note that {pa broda} is nonetheless still the same in > our case than {tu'o broda}. Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here. > > > > Why not indicate your reader clearly that exactly one thing satisfy > > > the description if it is indeed the case? This will relieve the reader > to > > > draw that eventually needed conclusion from the use of {tu'a}. > > > > You mean {tu'o}? The reasons are those I gave in the message you are > > replying to. > > I indeed meant {tu'o} sorry. IMO Your reasons put a burden on your reader > without any obvious advantage. The advantages I've spelt out already. The burden is only for learners encountering the usage for the first time. Thereafter there is no burden. > > There is a difference between claiming something and implying something. > > This shows up, for example, if the whole sentence is negated. > > Of course, but that is not the point. The point is that to understand fully > the sumti I will need the result of the implication. Why then introduce a > new quantifier when the same effect, that is a correct interpretation of > the referent by your reader, could be obtain with {pa}? First off, let me note that {lo'e} serves as an adequate alternative to {tu'o}. So I will recapitulate the reasons for preferring {lo'e} or {tu'o} to {lo pa}. 1. {lo pa} is sensitive to negation: whereas {tu'o broda na brode} is unproblematic, it corresponds to {lo pa broda na ku brode}, not to {lo pa broda na brode}. In my view, something that is sensitive to scope adds complexity to the mental processing of the sentence. 2. {lo pa} makes a claim. I do not wish it to have to be the case that whenever I talk about a du'u I also claim that there is only one du'u. If I say {lo pa broda cu brode} I am claiming that (i) something is broda and brode, and (ii) the cardinality of lo'i broda is 1. But I want to be able to claim only (i). 3. As I have already shown, the point of marking a singleton category as a singleton category is to help the speaker and hearer by signalling the greater logical simplicity. It runs contrary to general principles of form--function iconicity to signal simplicity of meaning by adding an extra meaningful word (pa). --And.