From jcowan@reutershealth.com Wed Dec 04 19:41:10 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jcowan@reutershealth.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 5 Dec 2002 03:41:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 53557 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2002 03:41:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Dec 2002 03:41:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail2.reutershealth.com) (65.246.141.151) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Dec 2002 03:41:09 -0000 Received: from skunk.reutershealth.com (IDENT:cowan@[10.65.117.21]) by mail2.reutershealth.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA29985; Wed, 4 Dec 2002 22:53:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200212050353.WAA29985@mail2.reutershealth.com> Received: by skunk.reutershealth.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 4 Dec 2002 22:38:16 +4300 Subject: Re: [lojban] response to And To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk (And Rosta) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 22:38:16 -0500 (EST) Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com (lojban) In-Reply-To: from "And Rosta" at Dec 05, 2002 02:00:29 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL6] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: John Cowan X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=8122456 X-Yahoo-Profile: john_w_cowan And Rosta scripsit: > Is it just bears, or also other animals? Sure, other animals too. > How about Claes Oldenburg > sculptures? Are they +furniture +stuffed? No context for this. Stuffed furniture is much closer to the prototype than Larry is to the prototype bear. > I. Gismu are defined as broadly as possible (but still with > boundaries that are in principle clear) > II. Category membership follows principles of prototype theory rather > than Aristotelian ones (so boundaries are fuzzy or outright gradient). > III. For practical purposes, statements should be evaluated in terms > not of literal meaning but of the meaning that is patently intended to be > communicated. Well, I reject III and can live with either I or II. > I threequarters believe you hold your philosophy on this matter just > for the pleasure of its perversity. I should know, because I do it > myself sometimes. But not on this issue... Ho. But really, claiming "I have no idea what some cmavo means" is just nonsense at the level of pragmatic meaning. We may not know *everything* about what certain cmavo mean, but to claim that there are some cmavo about which we know *nothing* (at the l. of p. m.) is nonsense. Claiming we know nothing about a cmavo, however, makes perfect sense if by it you mean that you have no *theory* of its "semantic" meaning. -- John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com http://www.reutershealth.com "Not to know The Smiths is not to know K.X.U." --K.X.U.