Message-ID: <34919DD1.2DD3@locke.ccil.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 15:25:53 -0500
From: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
Organization: Lojban Peripheral
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lojban List <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: la'e
References: <199712121615.LAA06929@locke.ccil.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 1438
X-From-Space-Date: Fri Dec 12 15:25:53 1997
X-From-Space-Address: -

Logical Language Group wrote:

> It makes sense to me.  Indeed anything in Lojban makes sense if the
> listener can ascribe meaning to it.

That works only if you have an independent criterion for ascribing
meaning.  Otherwise, Lojban looks like Xoinglish (Nora's variant of
English in which all sentences begin with "Xoi" meaning "It may or
may not be true that ..." and so are all true).  If I am allowed
to insert my own criteria of meaning, then we can interpret any
sentence as anything.

> Making sense of course has little to do with goodness of Lojban.  I
> could but this paragraph in zoi quotes and it would be valid Lojban and
> convey the intended meaning, but most would not consider that "good"
> Lojban.

I don't agree.  Putting the above paragraph in "zoi" quotes would not
CLAIM what the English paragraph claims.  It would simply CITE it,
and leave the selbri vague.  You could say that in such a case
the implied selbri is "jetnu" (is true), I suppose.

> If we know what "xukau ko'a badri" means as a Lojban predication, which
> we must if we can talk about "ledu'u xukau ko'a badri", then "le sedu'u
> xukau ko'a badri" makes sense.

Not so.  "kau" is not defined (at least not by me, and *a fortiori*
not by the refgram) outside du'u-clauses.  It may mean something
in ka-clauses, too.  In main clauses it has no known meaning.

-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan@ccil.org
			e'osai ko sarji la lojban