From lojbab Thu Aug 11 00:51:25 1994 Received: from access1.digex.net by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA28993 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Thu, 11 Aug 1994 00:51:22 -0400 Received: by access1.digex.net id AA07371 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for lojbab); Thu, 11 Aug 1994 00:51:17 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 00:51:17 -0400 From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199408110451.AA07371@access1.digex.net> To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: Lojbanizing umlaut Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, nsn@krang.vis.mu.oz.au Status: RO I'm sorry, but I cannot continue this in Lojban, though I did read your response. It took me a half hour, not merely a minuite, to read and respond to your last one, and I am spenidng upwards of 2 hrs/day on-line as it is. This is clealry NOT justr a 'minute' realxing from the dictionarty. Meanwhile the dictionary continues to be delayed, since I don't even get to work on Lojban some days - the on-line stuf and then the couple hours I spend off-line reading netnews, jkust takes too much time. And I havbe finally mailed out the last of the 18 month backlog of orders (I found that a pile of orders that I thought I mailed last fall, were sitting in a pile in the Florida room, as yet unsent. Good thing I cleaned up after LogFest this year! 30 people who had been waiting for stuff for over a year may now get what they ordered (So far, only 1 of the peopl has responded, with a much deserved flame.) I'm afraid that using the language is a luxury that I will not be able to properly indulge in, save for Tuesday nites and LogFests, untuil the books are laid to rest. I'll try to chip in once in a while, but I'm past my limits right now. No I don't think lo djacu can gasnu, i.e. be an agent. Maybe I have some funny ideas on 'agenthood', and we probably ought to get Nick's expert opinion on just what types of things are considered to be 'agents' by linguists. My doictionary tyalks about many kinds of causality - proximate cause, material cause, final cause, formal cause, efficient cause, etc. We oiught to be able to map these formal terms of philosophy and linguistics to specfic causal brivla but no one has ever done so systematically (and indeed we may have more causals than the formalists have names for these days). If Nick hadn't already picked his thesis topic, I would recommend studying linguistic reflections of causality. I find it fascinating (probably done to death, of course). (Even English responses take me a lot of time - this one took 15 mins.) lojbab