From lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Mon Oct 21 18:27:28 1996
Received: from punt-4.mail.demon.net by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP
	id AA16399 ; Mon, 21 Oct 96 18:27:26 BST
Received: from punt-4.mail.demon.net by mailstore for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk
          id 845566754:02592:0; Thu, 17 Oct 96 16:39:14 BST
Received: from cunyvm.cuny.edu ([128.228.1.2]) by punt-4.mail.demon.net
           id aa02242; 17 Oct 96 16:38 BST
Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R3)
   with BSMTP id 3900; Thu, 17 Oct 96 11:38:33 EDT
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with
 BSMTP id 2677; Thu, 17 Oct 96 11:38:19 EDT
Date:         Thu, 17 Oct 1996 11:37:19 -0400
Reply-To:     "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
From:         "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: lujvo morphology
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
In-Reply-To:  <199610162315.TAA29575@cs.columbia.edu> (message from Colin Fine
              on Wed, 16 Oct 1996 09:52:19 +0100)
Message-ID: <845566719.2242.0@cunyvm.cuny.edu>
Status: R


>Date:         Wed, 16 Oct 1996 09:52:19 +0100
>From: Colin Fine <colin%KINDNESS.DEMON.CO.UK@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>

>vecu'u le notci po'u <845367916.20508.0@vms.dc.lsoft.com> la "R.M.
>Uittenbogaard" <reneuit@SCI.KUN.NL> cu cusku di'e
>
>>On the other hand, other aspects of Lojban will certainly be used
>>differently by different speakers, which will have different opinions on
>>how to express certain things, e.g. I have seen (and can think of) the
>>following constructions:
>>
>>- sei la rik. cusku se'u mi cliva
>>- la rik. cusku lu mi cliva li'u
>>- la rik. lu mi cliva li'u
>>- cu'u la rik. lu mi cliva li'u
>>
>Specifically
>>- sei la rik. cusku se'u mi cliva
>is the sentence 'mi cliva' (I am alive) with a parenthetical remark 'la

Isn't "cliva" "leave"?

>>- la rik. cusku lu mi cliva li'u
>This is logically the simplest of the four: 'Rick expresses [the words]
>"mi cliva"'. Its truth depends on whether he does so, and not on whether
>they are true. It is still not explicit that he utters the words
>(perhaps he paints them), but it is explicit that it is the quoted jufra
>that he expresses, not its meaning

I seem to remember that this isn't so.  That "cusku" even with lu/li'u
quotes implies that the concept is communcated somehow, but not necessarily
the words.  I could say "le gerku cu cusku lu prami li'u" if the dog only
expressed the concept of love by wagging its tail, etc.

~mark