From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Aug 06 18:08:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 7 Aug 2001 01:08:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 84606 invoked from network); 7 Aug 2001 00:56:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Aug 2001 00:56:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.80) by mta2 with SMTP; 7 Aug 2001 00:56:29 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 17:56:29 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.55 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 07 Aug 2001 00:56:28 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.55] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: RE: [lojban] no'a Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 00:56:28 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Aug 2001 00:56:29.0091 (UTC) FILETIME=[CAB97F30:01C11EDB] From: "Jorge Llambias" la and cusku di'e > > 1- la djan ba klama lo zarci pu le nu la meris no'a > > > > A) John will go to some store before Mary goes to it. > > B) John will go to some store before Mary goes to one. > >C) John will go to some store before Mary is x1 of the next > outer bridi. Whatever does that mean? Could you give an example of a sentence with no'a that makes sense? The next outer bridi is {la djan ba klama lo zarci}, isn't it? >But let's change the examples to: > >1- la djan ba klama lo zarci pu le nu la meris go'i > > > > A) John will go to some store before Mary goes to it. > > B) John will go to some store before Mary goes to one. Sometimes I'm tempted to use go'i like that, but I think go'i can't be the bridi it is embedded in. >My answer is this: if, as in predicate logic, each quantifier >begins a new bridi, then by go'i-ing to the appropriate >bridi (outer, including the quantifier, or inner, not including >the quantifier), you could get both A and B readings, at least >for 1 & 2. What would be the bridi(s) in 1 if we followed predicate logic? I usually take bridi to be the things separated by .i plus anything within a NU. Can they be something else? >If only Loglan had remained true to its logical origins. Then >these sorts of issues would not arise, and we'd have decent >ways of saying all of the A & B sentences. Was Loglan really ever logically true enough for that? mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp