From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun May 27 16:27:45 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 27 May 2001 23:27:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 93894 invoked from network); 27 May 2001 23:27:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 27 May 2001 23:27:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.97) by mta3 with SMTP; 27 May 2001 23:27:43 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 27 May 2001 16:27:43 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.15 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 27 May 2001 23:27:43 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.15] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Request for grammar clarifications Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 23:27:43 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 May 2001 23:27:43.0867 (UTC) FILETIME=[A1508CB0:01C0E704] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e >xorxes: >place to a selbri is that it tags the date of the event. > >Sounds right, but needs interpretation. I suppose that the date of the >event >of being a letter is when the letter is written, i.e., the beginning of >that >state, and this seems to work generally. That's too ad hoc an interpretation for my taste. According to that I might say {mi jmive de'i li 1966} to indicate the year of my birth. I don't think {detri} should be interpreted as "x1 is the date of the beginning of x2". I think that for extended events, x1 of detri should be able to hold the range of dates: li 1450 bi'i li 1475 detri le nu ti se zbasu "1450 to 1475 is the date this was built on" And in any case, the date written on a letter may not agree with the date the letter was written. Does {de'i} then refer to the written date or the date of writing? >Of the possible ad hoc fixes, the one using {me} in its original >sense seems to me at least as reasonable as any alternative proposed (come >to >that, has an alternative been proposed?) The alternative I suppose is {ta me la ford karce} instead of {ta me la ford}. Or maybe also {ta karcrforde}. >"Ford" (indeed, {ford}) is clearly >a proper name and some weird English habit of using "the" or "a" in front >of >some proper names and not others (not all the cases are brand names, by the >way) should not affect the situation in Lojban. I guess it depends on what one means by proper name. What is {lo'i me la djan}? Is it the set of all things ever named "John", or is it the set whose only member is John, the (normally only one) person that we identify by that name in a given context? In other words, does {me} obliterate the meaning of {la} and concentrate only on the word "djan", used as a name, or does it start from the referent of {la djan}? I am assuming it is the latter, and so with {la ford}. There is normally only one thing that corresponds in a given context to a proper name. If I have a car lot full of Fords I won't be using {ford} as a name for each of them, will I? Or does {la ford} in such context mean "each of the Fords"? I am not sure, maybe it is {la} that I am not getting correctly. >Would {me lai ford} be better? Maybe {me lu'a lai ford}. co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.