From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu Dec 05 17:06:11 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 6 Dec 2002 01:06:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 73007 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2002 01:06:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Dec 2002 01:06:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Dec 2002 01:06:11 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18K6wV-0004CE-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 05 Dec 2002 17:06:11 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18K6vx-0004Bg-00; Thu, 05 Dec 2002 17:05:37 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 05 Dec 2002 17:05:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18K6vs-0004BX-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2002 17:05:32 -0800 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 gB61BfG9081704 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 19:11:41 -0600 (CST) (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 gB61Bamw081699 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 19:11:36 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 19:11:36 -0600 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] [fracture@allusion.net: Re: lo'edu'u] Message-ID: <20021206011136.GA81568@allusion.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="pf9I7BMVVzbSWLtt" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-archive-position: 3101 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 --pf9I7BMVVzbSWLtt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Robin asked me to send this to the main list, because he doesn't want to read jboske, and wanted to know why I don't like lo'edu'u (as a seperate thing from nicks complaints about misuse of "lenu", which I agree is rampant). ----- Forwarded message from Jordan DeLong ----- From: Jordan DeLong To: jboske@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: lo'edu'u On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 11:23:47PM +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote: > Lojbanists, walking home tonight, I had an epiphany. >=20 > And is right on lo'edu'u. And I'm going to make this part of _Lojban=20 > for Intermediates_ one day. [...] > OK, what's the deal with this lo'e? It was a recent debate on jboske,=20 [...] > The answer to our question, of course, is lo'e merko cu nelci le=20 > kelcrbeisbolo : The American (the typical American) likes baseball. IMHO {lo'e merko cu nelci le kelcrbeisbolo} is false, and {le'e merko cu nelci le kelcrbeisbolo} is true. This story of {lo'e} isn't complete, because it doesn't explain {le'e} and seems to take over some of {le'e}'s territory. [...] > Swimming ain't swims. It's a mooshy glob of swims. That's why And is=20 > saying it as lo'enu. For that matter, that's why Jorge and And have=20 > said it as tu'o nu. I accept and use lo'enu (and thanks for the much better explaination of what lo'e means than what jboske has given). However, "tu'o nu" is semantically the same as " lo nu", and using it as a different article is just broken. [...] > So, when you know that Fred swims, you know a claim, not an event. And=20 > just like events, claims are specific; they have all their arguments=20 > filled. So you can know the propositions: {mi djuno ledu'u la fred.=20 > limna la pacifikas de'i li 2002pi'e5pi'e1}, and {mi djuno ledu'u la=20 > fred. limna la atlantikas de'i li 2001pi'e3pi'e15}, and {mi djuno=20 > ledu'u la fred. limna la .indikas de'i li 2001pi'e7pi'e14}. And then,=20 > you can squint, and induce a generalisation: {mi djuno lo'edu'u la=20 > fred. limna}. {limna ma}? The question is invalid. You're not making a=20 > claim about a particular swim, in a particular body of liquid. You're=20 > generalising. Ok this is where I disagree. There's only 1 of any kind of du'u. "la fred. limna la .atlantikas." is a single du'u, there's no other du'us you need to "squint" around. You can't just add "de'i" to things and pretend it is the same. Adding those de'i makes them into completely different propositions. The speaker is also about to say the du'u, so clearly has it in mind (which suggests that even if a generic article were needed, you should probably use le'e---but that depends on what the exact meaning of le'e is). Same thing with ka. du'u provides propositions, ka provides propositional functions. For this reason I always use "le" with {du'u} and {ka}. --=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 ----- End forwarded message ----- --pf9I7BMVVzbSWLtt Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE97/lHDrrilS51AZ8RAgCTAJ9jMGY+GJBJcTaW89aN3pdCEt1atwCgjtaZ 03eCKA8sON9HoFiHdp2MH9o= =2VFF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pf9I7BMVVzbSWLtt--