From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Fri Aug 24 09:59:52 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 24 Aug 2001 16:59:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 94789 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2001 16:58:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Aug 2001 16:58:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta3 with SMTP; 24 Aug 2001 16:58:44 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Fri, 24 Aug 2001 17:35:45 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:02:42 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:02:34 +0100 To: pycyn , lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] A revised ce'u proposal involving si'o Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta #>>> 08/23/01 09:15pm >>> #The biggest problem I see with this proposal -- aside from its being=20 #unnecessary because it is a response to frivolous quibbles --=20 They aren't frivolous quibbles. They are conflicting but eminently reasonable desiderata: * to be able to be unambiguous * to be able to keep most current usage valid, and to have shortest forms for most frequently needed meanings * to be able to avoid having to insert half a dozen dummyish sumti in order to express a simple idea (such as "Going") My proposal resolved these conflicts. #is that it makes no sense. {ka} and {du'u} are part of the same=20 #spectrum (and, indeed, seem now to have become identical up to=20 #linguistic conventions, which is OK by me) of semantic functions,=20 #while {si'o} belongs with {nu} and {li'i} as concrete real world=20 #(whatever that may be) events.=20=20 Not in actual usage, AFAICS.=20 #Ideas (with one range of exceptions to be dealt with in some detail=20 #elsewhere eventually) are mental events in particular people minds,=20 #like experiences, and, to a lesser extent, events.=20=20 Given its gloss and its membership in NU, there are two sensical interpretations of si'o. One where it belongs with du'u and ka, and one where it belongs with li'i. The intepretations are incompatible; one must go. Your li'i reading can be done with=20 "(nu) -appropriate-cognitive-predicate loi du'u". The du'u/ka reading can be done with du'u/ka and a lorryload of ce'u. I prefer to express the li'i reading using cog-pred loi du'u, and be able to avoid the lorryload of ce'u. In support of your position is the fact that, like li'i, si'o has an x2, but this could equally well make sense on the du'u/ka interpretation, reflecting the philosophy that meanings of linguistic descriptions vary from speaker to speaker, so we could debate "loi si'o -democracy kei be la djan" versus "loi si'o -democracy kei be la bil" . #These are the realities to which the semantic objects refer (better=20 #make that "defer") in various ways. To put {si'o} in with {ka} is either = to=20 #make all thought abstract and impersonal or all semantics concrete and=20 #personal, neither very useful ideas in the long run (monism or solipsism).= =20=20 I don't think so. Why would "(nu) -appropriate-cognitive-predicate loi du'u= " do this any more than li'i-like si'o? --And.