From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Wed Oct 02 09:02:07 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 2 Oct 2002 16:02:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 36226 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2002 16:02:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Oct 2002 16:02:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Oct 2002 16:02:06 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17wlzy-0004qW-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 02 Oct 2002 09:05:18 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17wlzL-0004qB-00; Wed, 02 Oct 2002 09:04:39 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 02 Oct 2002 09:04:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from com1.uclan.ac.uk ([193.61.255.3]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17wlzH-0004q1-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 02 Oct 2002 09:04:36 -0700 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Wed, 2 Oct 2002 16:29:00 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 02 Oct 2002 17:02:02 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 17:01:37 +0100 To: lojban-list Subject: [lojban] Re: tu'o du'u (was Re: xoi'a) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline X-archive-position: 1822 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: And Rosta Reply-To: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810630 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin jordan: #> #But I can't think of an example of an incorrect #> #"le" with du'u like you're talking about. Did you have something in mind? #> #> "le du'u" = "each of certain du'u". If there is only 1 du'u for a given #> propositional content, then reference will succeed, but it's a bit like #> referring to my head as "each of certain of my head(s)" -- rather #> misleading. "le broda" implies the question "Which broda?". #> So "le gerku" is sensible, because "Which dog?" is a reasonable #> response, but "le mamta be mi" is odd because "Which mother of #> yours?" is redundant, though it can also be interpreted as #> "She (i.e. my mother)", in which case the {le} is not odd. # #This wasn't an example of a bad usage of "le" with du'u. Remember, #x1 of du'u is a predication (formed by the abstraction inside the #du'u). As far as I can think it, there's no difference between #ledu'u and lodu'u, because you just said the predication. No one #can ask "which predicaton?" (sensibly). That's why {le} is inappropriate (except arguably for the unusual reading "it (viz the proposition blahblah)"). It's kind of like if I say "a (certain) nose of mine is big" or "look at a (certain) sun" -- since I have only one nose, and there is only one sun, the referent is obvious, yet the locutions imply that I have more than one nose and that there is more than one sun. --And.