From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:53:32 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Received: (qmail 23460 invoked from network); 23 Sep 1997 01:53:20 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 23 Sep 1997 01:53:20 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <6.ABE6A6D7@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 3:53:09 +0100 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 11:51:37 +1000 Reply-To: HACKER G N Sender: Lojban list From: HACKER G N Subject: Re: na`e X-To: Arik Puder X-cc: Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <3426976F.667@netvision.net.il> Content-Length: 1923 Lines: 46 Message-ID: On Mon, 22 Sep 1997, Arik Puder wrote: > HACKER G N wrote: > > > > On Mon, 22 Sep 1997 bob@MEGALITH.RATTLESNAKE.COM wrote: > > > > > jorge@intermedia.com.a wrote: > > > > > > > lo mlatu ca'o vreta lo stizu > > > > > > > reclining/resting on what is truly a chair.> > > > > > > Yes, perhaps I would prefer "some cat sits on some chair" for > > > the English for that. > > > > > > This is an old argument. Suffice to say that I think it is practical > > > in everyday language to distinguish between that which I designate > > > {le} and that which really is {lo}. > > > > But that's kind of the problem, in a way. I must admit, I don't like the > > use of "lo" to mean "the", but by the same time I can understand wanting > > to distinguish that which you describe from that which really is, and it > > seems irritating that Lojban should arbitrarily lump together into one > > word what is clearly two separate concepts: what is described versus what > > really is, and what you specifically have in mind as an instance of > > something versus no instance in particular. You have chosen as more > > important the really-is aspect of "lo", while most other people tend to > > choose the nonspecific aspect of it, but that they exist together in the > > same word is an unavoidable reality. > > > > Lojban really forces you not to talk about specific things that really > > exist, which seems not only a limitation, but a veritable attack on our > > conceptual faculty to know specific things about the universe. Maybe the > > philosphical skepitcs are right and this is true, but if so, it should be > > left up to the individual to decide this and not preprogrammed at the > > linguistic level, I think. > > Regards, > > > > Geoff > unsubscribe Unsubscribe? That's not very nice. Or am I supposed to pretend that Lojban is perfect? Geoff