From pycyn@aol.com Tue Sep 10 16:27:24 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_0_1); 10 Sep 2002 23:27:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 1415 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2002 23:27:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Sep 2002 23:27:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d06.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.38) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 23:27:23 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.99.2c50a961 (3924) for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 19:27:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <99.2c50a961.2aafd9d6@aol.com> Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 19:27:18 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: word for "www" (was: Archive location.) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_99.2c50a961.2aafd9d6_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 15519 --part1_99.2c50a961.2aafd9d6_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/10/2002 4:56:47 PM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes: << > Tanru are not lujvo. > >> Almost true (an odd concept in its own right). Every lujvo selects A meaning from the underlying tanru (and a tanru -- at least one -- underlies every lujvo). How do we know which meaning was selected for a given lujvo? There is nothing inherent in the lujvo to tell us, so it must be the context by which we figure it out -- if we do. But, if context is needed to figure out a "literal" lujvo (and it is), it can be used in much the same way to figure out a "metaphorical" one -- perhaps with a smaller percentage of hits than for the literal one, but rarely (if the metaphor is a good one) with a really small percentage. And a larger context will up the percentage even more in both cases. So the test proposed is not going to be a very interesting one, though better than the original no-context version. --part1_99.2c50a961.2aafd9d6_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/10/2002 4:56:47 PM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes:

<<

Tanru are not lujvo.

>>
Almost true (an odd concept in its own right). Every lujvo selects A meaning from the underlying tanru (and a tanru -- at least one -- underlies every lujvo). How do we know which meaning was selected for a given lujvo? There is nothing inherent in the lujvo to tell us, so it must be the context by which we figure it out -- if we do. But, if context is needed to figure out a "literal" lujvo (and it is), it can be used in much the same way to figure out a "metaphorical" one -- perhaps with a smaller percentage of hits than for the literal one, but rarely (if the metaphor is a good one) with a really small percentage. And a larger context will up the percentage even more in both cases. So the test proposed is not going to be a very interesting one, though better than the original no-context version.

--part1_99.2c50a961.2aafd9d6_boundary--