Re: [lojban] Re: Meaningless talk

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la pycyn cusku di'e

> But {ta'e} is not about
> frequency but about intentional patterns, so this doesn't work as intended.

Whose intentions are involved? If nobody's in particular
(as it surely must be the case) then why can't it mean
[people] non-habitually test functions, [they] habitually
test their use.

> {-roi} with appropriate quantifiers ("few" and "many," say) get to your 
> point
> directly.

That would work too, but {ta'e} seems equally valid. One uses
absolute terms (total number of times) and the other one
uses relative terms (density of occurrence). Both seem valid
ways to make the point.

> Thanks.  I don't think saying {le sarcu remei} would have helped much.  And
> {zgana} is pretty clearly the wrong "observe" (I suppose he means these
> requirements are met) but where is the "often" and why is the thinker in 
> the
> comparison place rather than the standard?  In short, how did you get there
> from the actual word string presented?

Context, I guess. (Assuming I got it right, of course.)


> The transitions were harder and I am still not too clear on how you
> got from my philosophic pabulum, "A sentence is meaningful just in case 
> there
> is a test to determine whether it is true" to the langue-parole part (what
> gets tested, apparently).

We got sidetracked, but that happens all the time in our discussions
in English too, so if anything, that should count in our favour... :)

co'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.