From lojbab@lojban.org Mon Jul 16 16:32:50 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 16 Jul 2001 23:32:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 50103 invoked from network); 16 Jul 2001 23:32:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 16 Jul 2001 23:32:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-5.cais.net) (205.252.14.75) by mta1 with SMTP; 16 Jul 2001 23:32:49 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (47.dynamic.cais.com [207.226.56.47]) by stmpy-5.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f6GNWkT51366; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 19:32:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010716193100.00c23b20@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 19:36:51 -0400 To: John Cowan Subject: Re: [lojban] questions about DOI & cmene Cc: "Lojban@Yahoogroups. Com" In-Reply-To: <3B53012F.40102@reutershealth.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010714171907.0541af00@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.2.20010715102345.00be12b0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 10:58 AM 07/16/2001 -0400, John Cowan wrote: >Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote: > > At 04:45 AM 07/15/2001 +0100, And Rosta wrote: > > > >>No -- what you say is in clear contradiction to the Woldy Codex, page 136 > >>in discussion of ex. 11.5, though I too was in error. It is clear from > >>the book that "coi nanmu" = "coi le nanmu" = "coi do voi nanmu fa ke'a". > > > > Well, I could say the book is wrong, but that wouldn't be appropriate. %^) > > > > I'll just say that in ex. 11.5 there doesn't seem to be a substantial > > difference in meaning between his chosen expansion and mine, which would > > have use "la" instead of "le". > >Sure there is. I distinctly remember asking you whether "doi girl in >the red dress" (Carter vocative) was intended to be veridical or non-v., >and you distinctly said non-v. There was no question of its meaning >"O person named Girl In Red Dress!" which indeed is doi la etc. Umm, asking me veridical or non-v. doesn't to me differentiate between la and le, since both are non-v. in that neither la xunre nor le xunre have to actually be red. It differentiates between la/le and lo. Saying that there was no question of its meaning something doesn't tell me whether it means it or doesn't mean it (I can read it either way), so which are you concluding? lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org