From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Mar 02 20:03:17 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 3 Mar 2001 04:03:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 5978 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2001 04:03:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Mar 2001 04:03:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.152) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Mar 2001 04:03:17 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 20:03:16 -0800 Received: from 200.41.210.20 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 03 Mar 2001 04:03:16 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.210.20] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Meaningless talk Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 04:03:16 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Mar 2001 04:03:16.0834 (UTC) FILETIME=[E0349C20:01C0A396] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 5695 la pycyn cusku di'e >But {ta'e} is not about >frequency but about intentional patterns, so this doesn't work as intended. Whose intentions are involved? If nobody's in particular (as it surely must be the case) then why can't it mean [people] non-habitually test functions, [they] habitually test their use. >{-roi} with appropriate quantifiers ("few" and "many," say) get to your >point >directly. That would work too, but {ta'e} seems equally valid. One uses absolute terms (total number of times) and the other one uses relative terms (density of occurrence). Both seem valid ways to make the point. >Thanks. I don't think saying {le sarcu remei} would have helped much. And >{zgana} is pretty clearly the wrong "observe" (I suppose he means these >requirements are met) but where is the "often" and why is the thinker in >the >comparison place rather than the standard? In short, how did you get there >from the actual word string presented? Context, I guess. (Assuming I got it right, of course.) >The transitions were harder and I am still not too clear on how you >got from my philosophic pabulum, "A sentence is meaningful just in case >there >is a test to determine whether it is true" to the langue-parole part (what >gets tested, apparently). We got sidetracked, but that happens all the time in our discussions in English too, so if anything, that should count in our favour... :) co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.