From cowan@ccil.org Fri Aug 10 16:50:07 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 10 Aug 2001 23:50:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 33989 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2001 23:49:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Aug 2001 23:49:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mercury.ccil.org) (192.190.237.100) by mta3 with SMTP; 10 Aug 2001 23:49:25 -0000 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 15VM22-0004MC-00; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 19:49:34 -0400 Subject: Re: [lojban] First cutting for a new record In-Reply-To: from "pycyn@aol.com" at "Aug 7, 2001 04:34:41 pm" To: pycyn@aol.com Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 19:49:34 -0400 (EDT) Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 9413 pycyn@aol.com scripsit: > 1. The Book says that {vo'V} refer to the terms occupying the > corresponding places (a=1, e=2,...) of "the present bridi"; the cmavo list > says of "the main bridi of the sentence." The Book says that because the Book's author misunderstood the cmavo list. The Book's author thinks the cmavo list is bogus in this particular case. The Book's author is a mere scribe-or-Pharisee at this point. > The {nei} and especially {no'a} forms present some problems. With {nei} > the question is when is 'the present bridi' there? Can one refer, in the > first place, to {le te nei}, before the third place --or indeed the selbri -- > has been uttered? Lojbab is for the negative, And I am for the affirmative. "nei" is in some sense always a forward references, because one does not know its full meaning until the bridi containing it is complete. > On the other hand, it > seems odd to say that a bridi exists when there is no selbri (witness the > history of the terms, still found in places in the English 'explanations'). There is a selbri: it has not been uttered yet, but it exists (on the standard Lojban timeless view of existence). > With {no'a} the issue is what does it mean used as a bridi alone rather > than in a description. I don't understand the problem. There are problematic sentences, yes: la mark djuno la djan no'a means that Mark knows that John knows that Mark knows ..., but that is true for any such downshifting anaphora. > 3. "Jack challenged Bob to a duel. They agreed to fight on Isle Duello. I think a termset will do here: {Jack Bob} goi ko'a challenged to a duel. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore --Douglas Hofstadter