From ragnarok@pobox.com Thu Feb 27 17:56:55 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 28 Feb 2003 01:56:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 58600 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2003 01:56:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Feb 2003 01:56:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Feb 2003 01:56:55 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18oZle-0004dD-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:56:54 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18oZlY-0004cr-00; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:56:48 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:56:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.intrex.net ([209.42.192.250]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18oZlR-0004cJ-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:56:41 -0800 Received: from craig [209.42.200.67] by smtp.intrex.net (SMTPD32-7.13) id A1B834AD007C; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 20:56:08 -0500 To: Subject: [lojban] Re: Any (was: Nick will be with you shortly) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 20:56:08 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <200302272345.50143.phma@webjockey.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-Declude-Sender: ragnarok@pobox.com [209.42.200.67] X-archive-position: 4204 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: ragnarok@pobox.com Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "Craig" Reply-To: ragnarok@pobox.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >> Certainly. However, "mi djica le mikce" means the same thing. The only >> difference is that lo mikce must have an md, le mikce could be anyone I >> want to call a doctor. Lo and le do not mark for definition. >The definition of "mikce" says nothing about MDs. To be lo mikce, one has to >treat some patient for some illness using some treatment. Curse my overreliance on glosses. >"le" does mark for definiteness; the speaker has someone in mind (but does not >necessarily expect the hearer to know who it is) who may not exactly be a >doctor. My recollection is that the Book states that le and lo only differ in veridiciality. 'lo mikce' could be any doctor, no? So can't 'le mikce' be any doctor?