From fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com Tue Oct 08 08:11:55 2002
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 08 Oct 2002 08:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root)
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
	id 17yw1Y-000816-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 08 Oct 2002 08:11:52 -0700
Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g98FFpGZ044736
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:15:51 -0500 (CDT)
	(envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com)
Received: (from fracture@localhost)
	by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g98FFojw044735
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:15:50 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:15:50 -0500
From: Jordan DeLong <fracture@allusion.net>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: a new kind of fundamentalism
Message-ID: <20021008151550.GA44523@allusion.net>
References: <137.15791ab7.2ad43e25@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <137.15791ab7.2ad43e25@aol.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-archive-position: 1985
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list


--qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 09:56:53AM -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 10/7/2002 8:06:01 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
> lojban-out@lojban.org writes:
> <<
> > Ok; I agree that there is a gramatical difference, but not that
> > there is a real semantic difference (except perhaps in which part
> > of the claim is more important (the fact you are happy, or whatever
> > the other claim is))...
> >>
> Nope.  {ui [bridi]} is true or false depending on [bridi], and goes the s=
ame=20
> way.  If you are not, in fact, happy, you may be misleading but you haven=
't=20
> said anything false. =20
> {mi gleki lenu [bridi]} is true or false depending upon your attitude (ha=
ppy=20
> or not) about the event of [bridi].  Typically, it would also be false if=
=20
> that event did not occur, but this is deputable.  But certainly the mere =
fact=20
> that the event did occur would not make {mi gleki...} true.

It wouldn't be false if the event didn't occur because it uses "le".
I agree that the "pure emotion indicators" don't affect truth value...

This does *not* count as a real semantic difference.  If this is
all you have, I don't see how you are justifed in calling it the
"original malglico".

--=20
Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
                                     sei la mark. tuen. cusku

--qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE9ovamDrrilS51AZ8RAniNAJ9tx4CwNZZBjduw0TeqGGxGG9t/HwCbBTDG
DkZsYTBNLyYM085+2Dw9oNs=
=neRP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk--