From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Feb 28 10:10:33 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 18:10:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 43749 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2003 18:10:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Feb 2003 18:10:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Feb 2003 18:10:33 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18ooxs-0003I5-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:10:32 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18ooxM-0003HK-00; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:10:01 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:09:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18oowe-0003Ga-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:09:16 -0800 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:09:16 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Any (was: Nick will be with you shortly) Message-ID: <20030228180916.GR17252@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20030228032536.GA27053@allusion.net> <20030228005250.R1282-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030228005250.R1282-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i X-archive-position: 4228 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 12:59:32AM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: > On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Jordan DeLong wrote: > > If > > la bab. nitcu la djan. > > and > > la djan. mikce > > then one can infer that > > la bab. nitcu lo mikce > > But you can't infer > > la bab. nitcu mikce > > (something like la bab. nitcu ledu'u da mikce vo'a, except that > > you can't do that). > > > > This should show that they're different (provided you agree with > > it). Someone like And or Nick or Xorxes is more likely to be able > > to give a better definition of Any than I, but if you don't buy the > > above I can try. > > Why would I buy the above? la is specific, so I reject instantly any > "proof" based on it. That's the point. lo can just as easily refer to a specific doctor as a non-specific one, as demonstrated above where it does, in fact, refer to a specific doctor. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. .i le pamoi velru'e zo'u crepu le plibu taxfu .i le remoi velru'e zo'u mo .i le cimoi velru'e zo'u ba'e prali .uisai http://www.lojban.org/ *** to sa'a cu'u lei pibyta'u cridrnoma toi