From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Mon Aug 06 15:18:21 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 6 Aug 2001 22:18:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 38695 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2001 22:17:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Aug 2001 22:17:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta06-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.46) by mta2 with SMTP; 6 Aug 2001 22:17:39 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.41.128]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010806221738.WZID6330.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 23:17:38 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: ka + makau (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 23:16:41 +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" Jorge: > la xod cusku di'e [..] > >Jorge, I can understand your recent explanatory post better if I stop > >thinking of "makau" and use "ko'a" in its place. > > And yet it is not the same thing. In {la meris djuno le du'u ko'a > klama le zarci} le listener is expected to identify ko'a, either > because it was previously assigned or from context. I know this is orthogonal to your main point, but if ko'a is analogous to {le du}, as I think it should be, then the listener is is not necessarily expected to identify ko'a. Rather, a specific identity for ko'a is presupposed, so that the truth conditions of the sentence can be evaluated only one the identity of ko'a is established. --And.