<<
>It isn't the same -- or at least has not yet
>been shown to be.
How can it not be the same, when I am defining my {kairsisku}
as Lojban's {sisku}?
>>
Sorry; I keep assuming you are being consistent. Your {kairsisku} applied to old {sisku} does not obviously give modern {sisku}, partly because modern {sisku}, while messy, dseems to be coherent, while {kairbroda} does not, at least in connection with {broda}.
<<><<
>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,
What is abnormal about the first two? They seem perfectly
reasonable to me. The one with {le'e} above would be, in
terms of official {sisku}:
mi sisku le ka le pavyseljirna zo'u ce'u du py
>>
t does not say so, of course, because no one thought up these kinds of weird cases back then, but the assumption was that the property involved was a nuclear one, not one that derives indirectly from something else, like" being thought of by Frank" or "being identical to Charlie." Once the nuclear proeprties are in hand, I suppose we can work out how the others work, but it is certainly notov\bvious that they are the same.
<<
mi sisku lo pavyseljirna poi mi pensi ke'a
There is a unicorn that I am thinking about, which I seek.
This can be true only if there is such a unicorn in the world
of the utterance.
>>
Dodge 2 (and the best reason to rethink the be-exist axis). I mean "in this world" as witness my not using any world shifters (assuming there are some agreed upon).
But again, I don't want anything in the base discussion to hang on {sisku} since I proably share your disgust with that predicate as now sued (but I think it had to be changed from the old form, which you seem to find acceptable. Odd!)
| 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.