From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed May 02 20:04:04 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 3 May 2001 03:04:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 78891 invoked from network); 3 May 2001 01:26:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 May 2001 01:26:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.175) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 May 2001 01:26:51 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 2 May 2001 18:25:11 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.32 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 03 May 2001 01:25:10 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.32] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] le medomoi e le memimoi e le memi'omoi Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 01:25:10 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 May 2001 01:25:11.0052 (UTC) FILETIME=[E56FE4C0:01C0D36F] From: "Jorge Llambias" la and cusku di'e >The lei/loi versus le/lo distinction doesn't matter if there's only >one of a given thing. But if you're not certain of this, but wish >to refer to a single thing, then lei/loi are the appropriate >choice. If only lei/loi were less marked than le/lo, I would agree. But I feel them as more marked, and I just don't think that {le du'u} is wrong enough to justify the effort of unlearning it. >Loi is more appropriate than lei for at least two reasons. Firstly, >there's no getting away from the fact that lei -- ko'a voi -- is >nonveridical >and so makes truth-conditionally different claims from veridicals. If anything that would be an argument in favour of le/lei. I'm not even sure that I know what a real du'u is. >Secondly, the logic of ko'a voi/poi in contrast to da poi, is such that >there is a referent (which must be established contextually, irrespective >of whether it turns out that there is only one candidate referent). Both {ko'a voi} and {da poi} require that there be a referent, if that's what you mean. {ro da poi} is the only one that doesn't have existential import, but {[ro] le [su'o]} and {[piro] lei [su'o]} both do. >Hence >use of le ~ lei ~ ko'a voi/poi is always more context-dependent than >lo ~ loi ~ da poi. Maybe, but I still can't see that it makes any significant difference. Do you have any examples where this could cause a problem? >On top of this, some uses of "le nu" are plain wrong. In the case of {nu}, I have to admit that sometimes I use {le nu} even though I suspect it is wrong. Maybe I should start paying more attention to that. co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.