Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 12:35:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199803301735.MAA06556@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Rob Zook Sender: Lojban list From: Rob Zook Subject: Re: Summary so far on DJUNO X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199801210010.QAA25853@gateway.informix.com> X-UIDL: 6e889878ff55c3acb3756c6b2f20f4b0 X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Mar 30 13:20:24 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - At 09:35 PM 1/20/98 -0300, you wrote: > cu'u la ~mark >>I'm pretty much with you on that, though here's an interesting >>counterexample I heard on TV just the other day and made a note of: >> >>Some scientist was saying, on a science program, "Consider the 1920's. >>Scientists knew -- they KNEW -- that universe was just the milky way >>galaxy." >> >>This is a use of perhaps another meaning of "know" in English, a slightly >>different one, more in line with Steve Belknap: to be completely >>convinced. Used for effect here, since it's being falsified. > >I don't know whether I would call it another meaning of "know". As you >say, it is being used for effect. I can imagine the scientist just as well >saying something like: "Consider the 1920's. Back then the universe >WAS just the milky way galaxy." > >Would you say that that is another meaning of "be", or is it just a >way of saying something by making a claim that doesn't literally >mean that? Neither of these seem like good examples to use as candidates for djuno. Any phrase with "be" or any of it's couplas seems semantically confused. Rob Z. -------------------------------------------------------- Were it offered to my choice, I should have no objection to a repetition of the same life from its beginning, only asking the advantages authors have in a second edition to correct some faults in the first. -- Ben Franklin