From cowan@ccil.org Tue Aug 21 19:04:55 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 22 Aug 2001 02:04:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 50913 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2001 02:02:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Aug 2001 02:02:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mercury.ccil.org) (192.190.237.100) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Aug 2001 02:02:58 -0000 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 15ZNMK-0002yY-00; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 22:03:08 -0400 Subject: Re: [lojban] Retraction, Part 1 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010821192357.00d18d90@pop.cais.com> from "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" at "Aug 21, 2001 08:21:13 pm" To: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 22:03:07 -0400 (EDT) Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) scripsit: > Ya got me. I'm not sure I could ever keep straight the definiteness and > specific things, which indeed have been much discussed over the > years. Probably an issue that I lost on %^) Specific = the speaker knows which one is the referent Definite = the listener knows which one is the referent +specific +definite = the man +specific -definite = a certain man -specific -definite = a man, some man (-specific +definite is conceivable, but not likely except maybe in echo questions) > I am not saying that >I< will insist on this; on the contrary, when you say > it is done, it is. [...] You have full editorial power to decide that point. This is essentially what Lojbab said to me when I was in the "book seat". I second it now. > In my opinion, ka is a property of the selbri or bridi depending on to what > degree it is filled in. > > I understand that this may not be what ka "should" be, merely that it is > the way I look at the concept when I try to wax theoretical about it. When > ka is being used to focus on the propert(ies) of one place of the bridi, > then I understand and agree that ce'u is the appropriate usage. One or more places: two {ce'u}s make it a 2-place relation abstraction, etc. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org Please leave your values | Check your assumptions. In fact, at the front desk. | check your assumptions at the door. --sign in Paris hotel | --Miles Vorkosigan