From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Thu Jul 14 21:41:43 1994
Message-Id: <199407150141.AA11988@nfs1.digex.net>
Date: Thu Jul 14 21:41:43 1994
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: cukta
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Status: RO

la nitcion cusku di'e

> I don't know if the gi'uste has massively changed in the past three years
> while du'u has been gaining prominence;

I don't think it has, but du'u has been gaining prominence in my usage.

> I don't think so. Nothing wrong
> with, for example, {mi kucli lejei do jimpe loi kratymupli smuske} for
> "I wonder whether you understand prototype semantics".

[Probably not, I don't even know what it is :) ]

> {ledu'u} here would
> mean something completely different --- more like metalinguistic commentary,
> though at a semantic, rather than a syntactic level (=la'elu, not lu).

What??!!

I can accept {mi kucli le jei do jimpe ky} as another way of saying
{mi kucli le du'u xukau do jimpe ky}, but don't tell me this one means
something different.

>  I'd
> be pretty sure {jei} is a decimal, yeah. I'm sure John's detailed this in
> the ref.grammar.

Ok. Then:

        le jei mi jimpe ky du li nopino
        ije do kucli le jei mi jimpe ky
        iseni'ibo do kucli li nopino

Which doesn't make any sense to me.

[...]
> =if a word in English, like "book", has two different core meanings, let us
> =not confuse them into one with the excuse of fuzzy logic.
>
> Well, here's where I disagree. 'Book' in English is not polysemous.

Mmm... are you sure? It certainly has many other meanings than the two under
discussion.

> What's happening with 'book' is a
> single meaning being pragmatically extended thanks to association and
> generalisation.

Association, in this case.

> This is no accident; and the people working in this field
> would strongly contend that it is not an effect local to English,

Of course not, "libro" in Spanish suffers from... I mean enjoys the
same property.

> but that
> *all* human languages extend their semantics in this way --- that these are
> universal, cognitive processes at work.

I can believe that, but let's not force into Lojban the same associations
that English makes. (I know you agree, I'm just saying it again.)

> (Sorry about the tirade, but this does look like my PhD topic). ;)

Keep on tirading, it's very interesting. :)

Jorge