From sentto-44114-16534-1034172106-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Wed Oct 09 12:00:21 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 09 Oct 2002 12:00:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n26.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.82]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17zM4A-0004n8-00 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Wed, 09 Oct 2002 12:00:18 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-16534-1034172106-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.95] by n26.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 09 Oct 2002 14:01:46 -0000 X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_0); 9 Oct 2002 14:01:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 20344 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2002 14:01:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Oct 2002 14:01:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r08.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.104) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Oct 2002 14:01:45 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id r.9c.27852ef4 (4529) for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:01:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <9c.27852ef4.2ad590c1@aol.com> To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:01:37 EDT Subject: [lojban] Re: a new kind of fundamentalism Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_9c.27852ef4.2ad590c1_boundary" X-archive-position: 2066 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: pycyn@aol.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --part1_9c.27852ef4.2ad590c1_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/8/2002 9:55:41 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes: << > Jordan: > > I mean that they *mean* the same things. "Semantic difference" as > > you're thinking of it, sure. But "gleki leza'i broda" and ".ui > > broda" *mean* the same thing in a real conversation (or at least > > they would most of the time). > > You mean that even though the sentences have different truthconditional > meaning, speakers will generally intend to communicate the same > information when uttering them. >> Thanks for answering my next question before I got around to asking it; I'm sure you are right -- on the reading of Jordan, though less so on the reading of Lojban. The English muddle -- frequently acknowledged -- is an *English* (maybe even an SAE) muddle; it need not be a Lojban one. And Lojban is described to stop it being a Lojban one; let's go with that. So far as I can tell, Lojban does not allow, for example, a question to be directive other than to an answer. So the "Yes/ No" response to "May I have the sugar?," which is either witty or rude in English, is merely correct in Lojban for the direct Lojban translation {xu mi pilno le sakta}, and cannot arise for the more sensitive translation {e'o mi pilno le sakta}, which gets {ai[nai]}, not {[na]go'i}. Admittedly, {ai[nai]} is also a reading of "Yes/No" but not the one intended in the "joke." Similar differences might be maintained for attitudinals, I should hope. --part1_9c.27852ef4.2ad590c1_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/8/2002 9:55:41 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes:

<<
Jordan:
> I mean that they *mean* the same things.  "Semantic difference" as
> you're thinking of it, sure.  But "gleki leza'i broda" and ".ui
> broda" *mean* the same thing in a real conversation (or at least
> they would most of the time).

You mean that even though the sentences have different truthconditional
meaning, speakers will generally intend to communicate the same
information when uttering them.

>>
Thanks for answering my next question before I got around to asking it; I'm sure you are right -- on the reading of Jordan, though less so on the reading of Lojban.  The English muddle -- frequently acknowledged -- is an *English* (maybe even an SAE) muddle; it need not be a Lojban one.  And Lojban is described to stop it being a Lojban one; let's go with that.  So far as I can tell, Lojban does not allow, for example, a question to be directive other than to an answer.  So the "Yes/ No" response to "May I have the sugar?,"  which is either witty or rude in English, is merely correct in Lojban for the direct Lojban translation {xu mi pilno le sakta}, and cannot arise for the more sensitive translation {e'o mi pilno le sakta}, which gets {ai[nai]}, not {[na]go'i}.  Admittedly, {ai[nai]} is also a reading of "Yes/No" but not the one intended in the "joke."  Similar differences might be maintained for attitudinals, I should hope.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--part1_9c.27852ef4.2ad590c1_boundary--