From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Aug 25 15:39:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 25 Aug 2001 22:39:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 8545 invoked from network); 25 Aug 2001 22:39:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 25 Aug 2001 22:39:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.181) by mta1 with SMTP; 25 Aug 2001 22:39:38 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 15:39:38 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.33 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 22:39:38 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.33] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: mine, thine, hisn, hern, itsn ourn, yourn and theirn (was[lojban] si'o) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 22:39:38 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Aug 2001 22:39:38.0479 (UTC) FILETIME=[D2AAC7F0:01C12DB6] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10104 la nitcion cusku di'e >I mean, honestly, if you ignore the gismu list's definition of {moi}, >"*ordered* by rule x3", then there is in principle no reason why you can't >use any 3-place gismu for any other. I don't ignore it, I generalize it. If we order all hands by who they belong to, which hand do you think will correspond to Alice? >My beef isn't that you're using sumti as ordinals --- though I think it a >barbarism. I think it's the most rational extension possible of { moi}. It also provides us with a very useful meaning, and it does not contradict anything in previous usage or anything that the Book says. I'm really surprised that you and pc are so vehemently opposed. If it really is such a bad idea it won't catch on. If there were a competing meaning I could understand, but there isn't. >My beef is that, if you advocate {memimoi} as a generic >expression for "mine", you must dispense with any notion of ordering, >because "yours" vs. "mine" in general doesn't have a sense of ordering (as >in fact you have.) Why is it so crucial that moi refers to a "more than" type of ordering and not to an arbitrary order simply defined by a set of indices? >I mean, when the Duchess takes Alice's hand, and she >takes {le me la alis. moi}, {me la alis moi befi ma poi se porsi?} {be fi le ka ce'u xance makau}, the sequence defined by whose hand the hand is, indexed by behanded beings. >Like I say, if you use {zu'i pe mi}, you'll be understood immediately, you >won't leave metaphysical questions dangling, and you can go about your >business actually telling a story. I'm not so sure {zu'i} doesn't bring in metaphysical questions, but that's not the point, you could use {zo'e}. I find {memimoi} orders of magnitude more elegant. >Unless, of course, you want to use Lojban not in the most clear way, but in >the most exotic way (for reasons of personal creativity, or Sapir-Whorf, or >whatever.) Which I'm fast realising many here do... Neither the most clear nor the most exotic, the most elegant in this case. (By my standard of elegance, bien sūr) >Btw, there are two quite substantial chunks of Lojban in my 'retractions >Part 2' message. Yet to see anyone even respond to them, let alone comment >on their usage... (Does that mean my usage doesn't decide anything? :-) I meant to go back to them, but there's been so much traffic lately... >.i mi ji'a xenru .u'i lenu do na tinbe zu'i pe le gencukta lenu do jimpe zo >ba'o poi sumti tcita... i xu zu'i pe le gencukta cu du le finti be gy mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp