From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Oct 16 08:30:42 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_1); 16 Oct 2002 15:30:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 68607 invoked from network); 16 Oct 2002 15:27:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Oct 2002 15:27:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Oct 2002 15:27:04 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 181q9C-0002Qv-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 08:31:46 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 181q8Y-0002QW-00; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 08:31:06 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 16 Oct 2002 08:31:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 181q8U-0002QN-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 08:31:02 -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 g9GFYrGZ024024 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:34:53 -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 g9GFYrJ2024023 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:34:53 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:34:53 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: x1 is of type x2 Message-ID: <20021016153453.GA23987@allusion.net> References: <0210152141380J.02154@neofelis> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="mP3DRpeJDSE+ciuQ" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0210152141380J.02154@neofelis> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 2213 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 --mP3DRpeJDSE+ciuQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 09:41:38PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote: > On Tuesday 15 October 2002 21:02, And Rosta wrote: > > John loves Mary like Sue > > =3D 1. John loves Mary like John loves Sue. > > 2. John loves Mary like Sue loves Mary. >=20 > 1. la djan. prami la meris. petai la suz. John loves the mary which is like sue (in some way). > 2. la djan. petai la suz. prami la meris. The John which is like sue (in some way) loves mary. Also, however, there's no reason why la djan. petai la suz. should require that "la djan." is in the setai. It's strongly implied, yes, but it could indicate la djan. petai la suz. zi'epesetai la meris. zi'epevetai leka la djan. prami ce'u which is the same ambiguity anyway. In short I don't think putting it in a relative phrase actually reduces the ambiguity -- it just changes the implications. (namely which thing is *probably* setai, and that you think there are many "la djan"s (as you used a restrictive clause)). mu'o --=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 --mP3DRpeJDSE+ciuQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9rYccDrrilS51AZ8RAo5YAJ4tksEqETF49d25nk629Aoo2CFX2wCcDc5P O6dMLNHv9M9MqSfn6fRApT0= =4Mau -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --mP3DRpeJDSE+ciuQ--