From jjllambias@hotmail.com Tue Apr 17 18:49:30 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 18 Apr 2001 01:49:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 46313 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2001 01:49:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Apr 2001 01:49:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.211) by mta2 with SMTP; 18 Apr 2001 01:49:29 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:49:28 -0700 Received: from 200.41.210.11 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 01:49:28 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.210.11] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:not only Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 01:49:28 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Apr 2001 01:49:28.0689 (UTC) FILETIME=[CE0F6610:01C0C7A9] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e >ro lo nelci be leva stizu cu du le mlatu Why the change in word order? Isn't that the same as {le mlatu cu du ro lo nelci be le va stizu}? Avoiding {du} is always good Lojban practice, though. >{me le mlatu} gets a bit fuzzy, though both might be true if there were >several cats and they all liked the chair, No! If there were more than one cat, at least {du} would not be true! Each of the cats would not be = each of the likers. Each cat would only equal one of the likers. "Only the cats like that chair" would have to be {ro nelci be le va stizu cu me le mlatu} or {ro nelci be le va sticu cu du su'o le mlatu}. >So >noda poi na du le mlatu cu nelci leva stizu. Or more succintly: no nardu'o be le mlatu cu nelci le va stizu But that doesn't say that the cat does like it, which was part of the original claim. >The point is that, since {po'o} is grammatically a UI and since >semantically >UI are not supposed to affect the truth value of the sentence in which they >occur, we appear able to toss in "only" without paying for it. I never really bought that UIs don't affect truth values. At least some of them certainly do. In any case, all your objections to {po'o} would also apply to {ji'a}. >And when we >do have to pay for it, we have no clear inidcation what the price is going >to >be unless we run back through the well-hidden rules. Not the Lojban plan, >as >originally written nor even as revised in the Book. I can't say I know what those plans are. {po'o} is not one of the many cmavo that I would banish from the language... :) co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.