Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id PAA02260 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 1995 15:25:43 -0500 Message-Id: <199511202025.PAA02260@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 16205D38 ; Mon, 20 Nov 1995 16:17:01 -0400 Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 15:16:00 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: How jai and tu'a work X-To: ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Mon Nov 20 15:25:45 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU >> >My maoste has {tua} = "the bridi implied by". >> Sounds like I need to change it to "the abstraction implied by" > >But then it's too vague to be that useful. "Abstraction", I take it, is >not a coherent semantic notion, but a syntactic notion, so I suppose >it means "whatever a NU can denote". In that case, tua can refer to >a truth value or an experience or a concept or, given {suu}, anything >whatever. Yep. that it can. See Cowan's equivalent of tu'a using su'u. Pragmatics limits the semantics of tu'a, as it does jai,but both are not for the semantically pedeantic. (I'll probably put in Cowan's equivalent into the cmavo list as well)