From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Mon Jul 10 13:36:09 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3480 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2000 20:36:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Jul 2000 20:36:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Jul 2000 20:36:08 -0000 Received: from m123-mp1-cvx1c.gui.ntl.com ([62.252.12.123] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 13Bk8T-0000la-00 for lojban@egroups.com; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:26:37 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] A defense of dead horse beating Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:36:00 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20000709155137.37212.qmail@hotmail.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Xorxe: > la and cusku di'e > > >Hold on, though. I can't think what use {da voi broda} would > >be, but surely it's not the same as {su'o le broda}, because > >the latter entails that there is a referent for {le broda}. > > So does the first one. {da voi broda} is "at least one of > the things which I'm calling broda", and there has to be > a referent. No: I think {da voi broda} means "Ex 'broda'(x)", where '' indicate nonveridicality. For example, "Some fucker has farted" could be "da voi gletu cu ganxo zei [sneeze]". {da voi broda} is nonreferential (= nonspecific). > >And isn't {ro lo broda} merely the same as {lo broda}? > > No. {ro lo broda} is "each one of the things that are broda". > {lo broda} is the same as {su'o lo broda}, "at least one of > the things that are broda". You're right, of course. > >-- There > >is no specificity, unlike in {ko'a poi broda}. You can't have > >meant what you typed. > > I did mean it, but I knew it was going to be controversial. > I don't really grasp what could be the difference between > specific and non-specific universals. Once we have identified > the full set (either "all of those that really are", in the case > of {lo}, or "all of those that I have in mind", in the case of > {le}) if I refer to each of the members, using {ro}, is there a > difference in referring to each specifically or non-specifically? What are you saying is equivalent to what? I don't get what you're arguing for. As for {ko'a poi broda} ?= {ro lo broda} = {ro broda} = {ro da poi broda}, I still can't see any basis for it. In fact, I'm not wholly sure what {ko'a poi broda} means, though I'd be happiest if {ko'a poi broda cu brode} simply means {ko'a broda gi'e brode}. --And.