From pycyn@aol.com Tue Feb 13 11:07:51 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 13 Feb 2001 19:07:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 92800 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2001 19:07:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Feb 2001 19:07:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d07.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.39) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Feb 2001 20:08:34 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id r.e3.105119cc (17085) for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:07:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:07:23 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:su'u To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_e3.105119cc.27badfeb_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 10501 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 5458 --part1_e3.105119cc.27badfeb_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/13/2001 12:08:53 PM Central Standard Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > I believe that pc was envisaging a solution along the lines of: > > 8 *John believes le du'u da poi le ka la ortcut kei ckaji ke'a cu spy > > 9 *da poi le ka la ortcut kei ckaji ke'a zo'u John believes le du'u da spy > > the idea being that "la ortcut" in *"ka la ortcut kei" cannot be replaced > by anything coreferential with "la ortcut". > > There may be many errors and misunderstandings here, so I invite > corrections from pc and John (and whoever else). > Aside from some worries about using names for these people at all, I think -- barring problems I have not yet thought of (i.e., that no one has yet mentioned) that that is it. The fact that a coreferential can't be substituted for a name in a ka phrase seems to catch the crucial piece. But I do want to insist that being called Orcutt doesn't matter either (I think this tends toward view I). Thanks. (sorry about getting caught up in the fun stuff peripheral to the point at issue. If it soothes xod's monocosmia any, I should note tht for all the techno-logical apparatus I've been talking about, very little concrete results have emerged in a century. The best summary I can come up with is "You get back about what you put in" in ways obvious by now from the descriptions of how these worlds are set up.) --part1_e3.105119cc.27badfeb_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/13/2001 12:08:53 PM Central Standard Time,
arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:



I believe that pc was envisaging a solution along the lines of:

8   *John believes le du'u da poi le ka la ortcut kei ckaji ke'a cu spy

9   *da poi le ka la ortcut kei ckaji ke'a zo'u John believes le du'u da spy

the idea being that "la ortcut" in *"ka la ortcut kei" cannot be replaced
by anything coreferential with "la ortcut".

There may be many errors and misunderstandings here, so I invite
corrections from pc and John (and whoever else).




Aside from some worries about using names for these people at all, I think --
barring problems I have not yet thought of (i.e., that no one has yet
mentioned) that that is it.  The fact that a coreferential can't be
substituted for a name in a ka phrase seems to catch the crucial piece. But I
do want to insist that being called Orcutt doesn't matter either (I think
this tends toward view I).
Thanks.  (sorry about getting caught up in the fun stuff peripheral to the
point at issue.  If it soothes xod's monocosmia any, I should note tht for
all the techno-logical apparatus I've been talking about, very little
concrete results have emerged in a century.  The best summary I can come up
with is "You get back about what you put in" in ways obvious by now from the
descriptions of how these worlds are set up.) --part1_e3.105119cc.27badfeb_boundary--