Message-Id: <m0rEkAg-00007GC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Mon, 5 Dec 1994 20:27:05 +0000
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: cmavo hit-list
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Sun, 04 Dec 94 18:45:20 EST.)
Content-Length: 897
Lines: 21

Jorge:
> And:
> > There is very much a difference. A duhu should have a truth value,
> > while a siho is a mental object. If you're describing something
> > inside a mind, siho is clearly fitting. If you're talking about
> > proof, or hypothesis testing, or suchlike then duhu is fitting.
> > A siho isn't true or false; a duhu isn't a mental object.
>
> I'll have to wait and see how it's used. From what you say I can't
> tell what's the difference between {mi jinvi le du'u broda} and
> {mi jinvi le si'o broda}. Whether the relationship described by
> the inside bridi is in someone's mind or not is given by the meaning
> of the outside selbri. What I'd like is two sentences that differ
> only in si'o/du'u to see the contrast.

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.

---
And