[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis



In a message dated 6/13/2001 9:35:12 PM Central Daylight Time,
xod@sixgirls.org writes:



Certainly it is bad to assume that {.ui ko'a klama} means the same as
> {mi gleki lenu ko'a klama}.



Everybody's agreeing on this, but nobody has explained why to my
satisfaction.




This came in out of order, since I think I have seen answers to it already.  
However:
{ui ko'a klama} is true or false depending upon whether {ko'a klama} is, that
is, whether whoever {ko'a} refers to comes or goes somewhere.... It is also
evidence that the speaker is happy about this event.  {mi gleki le nu ko'a
klama} is true or false depending upon whether or not the speaker is happy
about an event of whoever {ko'a} refers to coming or going ...  It is not
evidence that the speaker is happy but a claim that he is. Speaking of the
same occasion by the same speaker, one of these could be true and the other
false -- the klaming took place but the speaker was not really happy makes
the first true and the second false.  The first is also misleading, since it
gave some evidence that the speaker was happy, but the evidence was just
misleading, it turns out.