Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 00:52:09 +0000
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: replies re. ka & mamta be ma
In-reply-to: (Your message of Wed, 15 Feb 95 08:44:04 PST.)
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Message-id: <01HN3YCTVH88000DNY@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 728
Lines: 16

Mark B:
> >I'm suggesting that if there isn't a single primitive word for 1,
> >and if lg (iconically) models cognition, then such a lg implies
> >that 1 is not a basic concept. Furthermore, the sense of {le namcu
> >pe le solri} is not 1; it just happens to refer to 1. But I concede
> >that the sense of {namcu zei solri} could be 1.
> Not if your talking to an alien by radio in binary star solar system :-)
 
{namcu zei solri} is a lujvo, so in principle its sense can be anything
at all, even including 1 in a world with 2 suns. In practice the meaning
of lujvo are constrained by the meanings of their parts, but notwith-
standing this, the meaning of the whole can be true even if the meaning
of the parts isn't.
---
And