Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0rF6Ls-00007GC; Tue, 6 Dec 94 22:19 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7848; Tue, 06 Dec 94 22:19:22 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 7845; Tue, 6 Dec 1994 22:19:22 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5783; Tue, 6 Dec 1994 21:16:03 +0100 Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 14:58:32 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: cmavo hit-list X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1835 Lines: 42 And: > If you study "lo siho [the sun goes round the earth]" you're a > psychologist. If you study "lo duhu [the sun goes round the earth]" > you're an astronomer. I think the psychologist doesn't study that idea, but something about the idea, like why someone would believe that. The sentence {le menmikce cu tadni le si'o le solri cu mluni le terdi} sounds very strange to me. lojbab: > I think you could use "du'u" in any of those you listed for "si'o" with > different semantics. (And gave the example of one meaning astronomer, > the other meaning > psychologist - though I would think (natural) philosopher more appropriate > to the si'o version. Even with a philosopher, the sentence doesn't sound right. I can understand other people studying the evolution of the idea, or the consequences of the idea, or the reasons for the idea, but what the idea itself represents is studied by the astronomer. > Thus le/lo du'u klama referes to specific bridi relations reflecting events > of going. These goings could be evaluated individually for whether they > are true/false. I don't think saying {mi krici le du'u do klama} says anything about the truth value of {do klama}. I don't see much difference with {mi krici le si'o do klama}. > le/lo si'o klama to me would bring to mind the sensation/imagination of > "going" without focussing clearly on who/what is going,or desitnations, routes, > or means. I mentioned dreams and thoughts because OFTEN (not always) when we > dream or think, we focus on the relationship, and not on specific or quasi- > specific instances of the relationship. Well, I'll have to think more about it. I'm not very convinced, but I admit there might be something there. I probably won't be using si'o for now, but if I see others using it an it seems to make sense, I might also do it, Jorge