From rmcivor@macsrule.com Mon Feb 14 16:50:10 2000 X-Digest-Num: 364 Message-ID: <44114.364.1982.959273826@eGroups.com> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 19:50:10 -0500 From: "Robert A. McIvor" Subject: RE: 3 loafs >Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 19:47:00 -0500 >To: "And Rosta" >From: "Robert A. McIvor" >Subject: RE: [lojban] 3 loafs >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > >> And Rosta wrote: >>> From: John Cowan >>> >>> Robert A. McIvor scripsit: >>> >>> > >> In Loglan, I would have said 'da [pa] gentci ne rebfoa' >>> He/she/it >>> > >> again-ate a bread-loaf, which put the stress on the repetition of the >>> > >> eating act rather than the characteristics of the loaf. >>> > > >>> Ah, I see the problem. You mean to say that he is eating a loaf (the same >>> or another) on a *different* occasion, whereas I understood you to mean >>> that he is eating a loaf on *multiple* occasions, in which case I think >>> it is clear that the same loaf is meant. >> >>As for the actual Lojban ex given above, my interpretation is John's. >> > Maybe I confused things a bit by the E translation 'again-ate'. >However, >as a matter of principle, I consider a predicate to indicate an operation >which takes >arguments. I see no reason why the arguments should be considered to be >linked unless the >arguments themselves specify a linkage. To me, gentci just indicated two >eating >operations linked as a time-series. Since the bread arguments were both >indefinite, in my >opinion there is no reason to consider them linked. However, if, as in E, >one wished definitely to indicate that the same loaf was not eaten twice, >one could say ne norsao rebfoa (a not-same bread-form). Does Lojban >interpret predicates differently? > >