Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Wed, 8 Jul 92 01:56 EDT Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA29131; Tue, 7 Jul 92 17:32:10 EDT Received: from pucc.Princeton.EDU by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA27641; Tue, 7 Jul 92 15:54:50 -0400 Message-Id: <9207071954.AA27641@relay1.UU.NET> Received: from PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU by pucc.Princeton.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3616; Tue, 07 Jul 92 15:54:23 EDT Received: by PUCC (Mailer R2.08 ptf033) id 9381; Tue, 07 Jul 92 15:53:55 EDT Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1992 20:51:40 BST Reply-To: Ivan A Derzhanski Sender: Lojban list From: Ivan A Derzhanski Subject: Wallops #8 To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann In-Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson"'s message of Tue, 7 Jul 1992 14:05:30 -0400 <9687.9207071808@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Wed Jul 8 01:56:44 1992 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!CUVMB.BITNET!LOJBAN > Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1992 14:05:30 -0400 > From: "Mark E. Shoulson" > >From: Ivan A Derzhanski > >> From: "Mark E. Shoulson" > >> >From: nsn%MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU > > Well, from what I've seen of {me}, it's used *very* often to mean something > like {du}. It can mean that, too. It is meant to be ambiguous. > I'd just be way more likely to interpret {me mi} as "is me". Well, there's Ockham's razor ("if he had meant `is me', he would have said {du mi}"), but it is not guaranteed to work. Still, I would have chosen something from the gismu list. > >> Maybe {cusku}'s better than {bacru}, too. > > >I'm afraid {bacru lu ... li'u} means {cusku la'e lu ... li'u} - you > >utter the words to express their meaning. > > Yes, I was talking about style. What's of importance here is that the > concept was expressed (MTRANS, using that idiom) from entity to entity, not > that sounds warbled in the air. {cusku} catches the meaning better, or > Nick's {crusku} would be good too. It is true that the {nu cusku} is more relevant than the {nu bacru}, but I was thinking of the type of x2. You utter text ({lu ... li'u}), you express meanings (la'e the text). Now wait a minute. Does {lu ... li'u} mean this particular text, or the meaning it has when interpreted as Lojban, or both? > I see in reduplication > mostly a sort of extra-grammatical point, "If the two elements of a tanru > are the same, it means augmentation," which is nowhere implied in lojban's > tanru-making. No, there is no such point. It may mean whatever it pleases. But let's see if it is logical for it to mean augmentation, among other things. Suppose all events happen between 6am and 6pm, and those from 6am to noon are clira, while those from noon to 6pm are lerci. Then in a way the events from 6am to 9am are clira clira and the events from 9am to noon are lerci clira. This is the only support I see for Nick and Colin's position. > Remember, that's what we have {je'a} for in the first place. Ah! that's it. That's why I oppose {clira clira}: it is borrowed from languages which have no {je'a}. Ivan