<<
Would you say that official {sisku} is just awkward (my position),
or plain nonsensical?
>>
Given that choice, I would go with "awkward," too. I would prefer "ill-conceived" and "needlessly opque" (not quite the same as "awkward').
<<
If it is just awkward, then I don't see a problem on basing
a simpler way of doing things on that awkward way.
>I note that your examples with {pavyseljirna} for
>{santo}, are also simple but generally wrong.
How are they wrong?
mi sisku le mi pavyseljirna
(Can be true if there is something I refer to as "my unicorn")
>>
The boring repetition of this dodge is one of my stronger reason for going back an rethinking the the whole be-exist axis. I mean, as you well know, "the particular unicorn I have in mind." And if that doesn't work, use {la cerlakolmz}.
<<
mi sisku lo'e pavyseljirna
I seek a unicorn. (Can be true even in worlds where I have no
hope of ever finding any.)
>>
This is, of course, the case in contention and cannot be used to support the heretical view as such. It is false in Lojban and iffy in Llamban until {lo'e} is explained in a consistent and coherent fashion.
<<
le mi pavyseljirna zo'u mi sisku le ka ce'u du py
lo pavyseljirna zo'u mi sisku le ka ce'u du py
mi sisku le ka ce'u pavyseljirna
(= mi sisku le ka lo pavyseljirna zo'u ce'u du py)
>>
Only the third of these is normal Lojban, which is why your {kai-} move looks a bit like the {sisku} one. It isn't the same -- or at least has not yet been shown to be.
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor | |
|
|
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.