From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Oct 02 17:09:09 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 3 Oct 2002 00:09:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 54739 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2002 00:09:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Oct 2002 00:09:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Oct 2002 00:09:09 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17wtbL-0007WR-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 02 Oct 2002 17:12:23 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17wtan-0007W7-00; Wed, 02 Oct 2002 17:11:49 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 02 Oct 2002 17:11:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17wtaj-0007Vy-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 02 Oct 2002 17:11:45 -0700 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g930FoGZ080850 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 19:15:50 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g930FoQS080849 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 19:15:50 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 19:15:50 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: tu'o du'u (was Re: xoi'a) Message-ID: <20021003001550.GA80454@allusion.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 1841 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out --PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 05:01:37PM +0100, And Rosta wrote: > jordan: > #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). >=20 > That's why {le} is inappropriate (except arguably for the unusual > reading "it (viz the proposition blahblah)"). >=20 > It's kind of like if I say "a (certain) nose of mine is big" or "look at = a (certain)=20 > sun" -- since I have only one nose, and there is only one sun, the=20 > referent is obvious, yet the locutions imply that I have more than one no= se > and that there is more than one sun. I suppose you're not giving me an example because you're trying to claim it is *always* bad to say "ledu'u"? I don't think that using "le" implies there are more than the su'opa to which is being refered. Using "le" means "su'opa le ro", and makes no claim about how big ro is. If anything, for the du'u clauses "le" is more proper than a different article because the speaker obviously has the preposition in mind (as they're about to say it). Note that this is entirely different from the often improperly used "le" found with "nu". (x1 of nu is the event, where x1 of du'u is the predication expressed in the du'u -- i.e. du'u is more or less a no-op which just is there for grammar purposes). --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9m4w2DrrilS51AZ8RAm66AKCAWvlnfH49nO0pJt+8IaOecHDPJACgs0Fj SV8MQbB7BiZm93vfAihwao8= =zV74 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr--