From pycyn@aol.com Mon Apr 02 13:40:50 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_0_1); 2 Apr 2001 20:40:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 63737 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2001 20:40:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 2 Apr 2001 20:40:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r13.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.67) by mta3 with SMTP; 2 Apr 2001 21:41:41 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id r.99.12e7abac (4407) for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 16:40:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <99.12e7abac.27fa3db8@aol.com> Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 16:40:24 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: NU To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_99.12e7abac.27fa3db8_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 6380 --part1_99.12e7abac.27fa3db8_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/2/2001 1:11:11 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > explanation given in the book. I don't doubt that yours fits > closer to the standard meaning of "achievment", but in Lojbanic > lore technical terms tend to wander off into whole new meanings. > I think that according to Book-Lojban {le mu'e mi ciska} cannot > be taken to mean {le nu mi co'a ciska} or {le nu mi mu'o ciska}. > {pu le mu'e mi ciska} would have to be before my whole writing, > taken as a point event, never as a reference to one specific > point of the writing event.> > Right-- I forgot to check the Book, relying on memory (always a mistake in my case) of the discussion around these topics earlier -- and the parallelism of the other NU with the event classification from Aristotle. I should remember about wandering vocabulary (metaphor, epistemology,...). Lord knows it comes up often enough. Not neceessarily intended here: this could be a five-year old referring to last year, when he had to ask his sister (yuck!) to write to Santa Claus for him. True, but typically what is {se ciska} would be different -- a particular ms (or whatever) in a process, inscriptions generally in an activity-- and even moreso in a state. The event type is more efficient that adding {le cukta} or {lo cukta} (or {se ciska} throughout). And why {finti}, not just {ciska}? Even the deviser of a plot et al has to get it down on paper or whatever before it is a book. (metonymy) Someday I'll forget enough 76 Loglan to learn Lojban. --part1_99.12e7abac.27fa3db8_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/2/2001 1:11:11 PM Central Daylight Time,
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


<I'm not sure that your understanding of {mu'e} agrees with the
explanation given in the book. I don't doubt that yours fits
closer to the standard meaning of "achievment", but in Lojbanic
lore technical terms tend to wander off into whole new meanings.
I think that according to Book-Lojban {le mu'e mi ciska} cannot
be taken to mean {le nu mi co'a ciska} or {le nu mi mu'o ciska}.
{pu le mu'e mi ciska} would have to be before my whole writing,
taken as a point event, never as a reference to one specific
point of the writing event.>

Right-- I forgot to check the Book, relying on memory (always a mistake in my
case) of the discussion around these topics earlier -- and the parallelism of
the other NU with the event classification from Aristotle.  I should remember
about wandering vocabulary (metaphor, epistemology,...).  Lord knows it comes
up often enough.

<I guess I can imagine subtle distinctions there, but for example
I don't think that {za'i} introduces the idea of profession that
the English "writer" has>
Not neceessarily intended here: this could be a five-year old referring to
last year, when he had to ask his sister (yuck!) to write to Santa Claus for
him.

<And the {se ciska} is implied in all
three cases, you can talk about {le zu'o mi ciska le vi cukta}
as well as {le pu'u mi ciska le vi cukta}. (We are using {ciska}
where we should be using {finti}, I now realize.)>

True, but typically what is {se ciska} would be different -- a particular ms
(or whatever) in a process, inscriptions generally in an activity-- and even
moreso in a state.  The event type is more efficient that adding {le cukta}
or {lo cukta} (or {se ciska} throughout).  And why {finti}, not just {ciska}?
Even the deviser of a plot et al has to get it down on paper or whatever
before it is a book.  (metonymy)  

<le ka le tsani be ce'u cu blanu>
Someday I'll forget enough 76 Loglan to learn Lojban. --part1_99.12e7abac.27fa3db8_boundary--