From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Feb 28 11:31:36 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 19:31:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 2337 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2003 19:31:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Feb 2003 19:31:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Feb 2003 19:31:36 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18oqEJ-0004WK-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:31:35 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18oqDs-0004Vj-00; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:31:08 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:30:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18oqCw-0004VG-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:30:10 -0800 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:30:09 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Any (was: Nick will be with you shortly) Message-ID: <20030228193008.GA17252@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20030228191121.GZ17252@digitalkingdom.org> <20030228141257.M4979-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030228141257.M4979-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i X-archive-position: 4239 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 02:21:58PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > And as I said to Craig, no, I don't. I agree that there exists some > > thing that you need. The scope of your need is still undefined. > > > What can I say? It's wrong. Using da to mean something that you have > in mind would make da specific. And it would make lo specific. But lo > is not specific. I think even Jordan would agree with this; he once > tried to convince me that even when da was limited to refer to a > single item, it STILL isn't specific! > > > > You never answered my question, by the way. Do you believe that "da > > poi prenu zo'u da viska la djim." means that any human, including > > the blind ones, can see Jim? > > > If I endorse Craig's post, and Craig shows that the poi clause limits > the valid range of da, then therefore I agree with you here. So yes: > explicitly-given context circumscribes the range of da. I didn't > answer it because that's not what's being disputed here. You've just contradicted yourself. Either context constrains da or it doesn't. If I need a doctor because I have cataracts, an otolaryngologist is of little use. Saying that the context must be explicit violates a long-held tenet of lojban: that unfilled places can contain anything that continues to make the sentence valid (in this case we're talking about the x3 of nitcu). -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