Re: Response to Randall Holmes on Loglan/Lojban "me"

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

> Randall Holmes <holmes@diamond.idbsu.edu>:
> >I have argued, and Bob McIvor supports me, that the meaning of ME
> ><designation> ought to be precisely "is one of the objects currently
> >referred to by <designation>"

lojbab:
> John Cowan pointed out to me that when this issue came up before, we
> determined that we did indeed have a solution.  The Lojban identity
> predicate "du"

[...]

> Thus, the identity conversion function of TLI "me" is identical to the
> Lojban "du be":

I'm not sure, but I think the _one of the_ part was important, and {du},
as I understand it, doesn't mean that.

> >lea  meba        jio ...ba...
> >"the set of all ba such that ...ba...
>
>  rolo me du be da poi ...da...

I guess you meant:

   ro lo du be da poi ... da ...

but why not simply:

   ro da poi ... da ...

For the other meaning of "lea", {du} could be useful:

   lo'i du be da poi ... da ...


> > Da   me    le to mrenu
>   ko'a du be le re nanmu
> >means "X is one of the three men I have in mind".

Is that what {du} means? ko'a is one of the two men? or all the two men?


> >The set of all x such that x loves x
> >
> >Lea  meba     jio ba cluva ba
> >
> >How would you propose to say this?
>
>  lo'i du be da poi da prami da

Yes, that should work for sets.

Reflexives in normal conversation might also be useful, though, and I don't
know if something was concluded from the {no'a} conversation. How would
you say "the lover of themself"

        le prami be ma?


Jorge