From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Thu Apr 19 12:34:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 19 Apr 2001 19:34:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 67263 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2001 19:34:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Apr 2001 19:34:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta01-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.41) by mta3 with SMTP; 19 Apr 2001 19:34:02 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.252.12.161]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010419193400.STMV283.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:34:00 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] RE:not only Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:33:08 +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: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Xorxes: > 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}. The problem with the latter is that it doesn't entail that each of the cats like the chair. The problem with the former is that if {me le mlatu} means "is each of the cats", then it's false, because each liker is one of the cats, not each of cats, while if {me le mlatu} means "for each x, x is one of the cats: is x", it's still false, for similar reasons, and so would be {me lei mlatu}. I think you've pointed this sort of thing out before. OTOH, I'm with pc in disliking logical meanings expressed woollily by UI. So here's my suggestion: lo'i nelci be le va stizu cu me le'i mlatu or lo'i nelci be le va stizu du le'i mlatu --And.