From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Tue Jun 13 06:44:06 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29614 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2000 13:44:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 13 Jun 2000 13:44:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.42) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Jun 2000 13:44:04 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Received: from [10.1.10.119] by hj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 13 Jun 2000 13:44:04 -0000 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:43:57 -0000 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: le/lei/la/lai ... Brutus & the rest Message-ID: <8i5dqt+k7o3@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1099 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._Tueting_(T=FCting)?=" I'm wondering if there is a (concise?) Lojban way to be precise with regard to legal purposes (I'm thinking here of criminal law): E.g. Brutus and the rest killed Caesar. Using /le/la/ implies that the one or all I have in mind (i.e. each single one) committed the crime of stabbing a person named C. (from context here: the same person in one event). That's okay here, because each one was using his own dagger ;) Using /lei/lai/ instead implies that there was a party that committed the murder (yet not stating whether or not each member of the group really stabbed him, actively or only mentally supported the action in some way/degree - or (involved in the plan or not) just stood aside on the forum or did not even go there. It's sufficient (for the use of lei/lai) to be a member of the concrete or even just virtuel unit or set (or how ever you want to call it). Compared to the 'scale' of e.g. zi/za/zu/, vi/va/vu/ and other even more graduated Lojban means (scalars), isn't there kind of a gap here to express those 'shades' of relationship between "guilty and not-guilty"? .aulun.