Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: mine, thine, hisn, hern, itsn ourn, yourn and theirn (wassi'o)

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 04:21:07

la nitcion cusku di'e

>Let me come clean; I think (and have always thought) Sapir-Whorf bogus (as
>most linguists do, for ideological reasons);

I completely agree, even though I'm not a linguist.

>Sapir-Whorf is not what
>attracted me to Lojban; and when I do get epiphanies in my Lojban use and
>interaction (which has and does happen), they come from clarifying things
>on the logical side of the language, not the non-logical side.

In my case it's not so much the logic in itself, but the
language-logic, when two things that seemed unrelated suddenly
come together in a general rule for example.

>Indeed, I
>still believe there is nothing on the non-logical side of Lojban (and I
>emphatically include tanru and attitudinals here) which is particularly
>unique or special to Lojban.

Probably true. I don't have much to say for tanru, but there's a lot
in attitudinals that is not clear to me yet. The big attitudinal
debate of some months ago was helpful but still to be concluded.

>This, I think, underlies many of my current disagreements with people (and
>particularly xod); so xorxes, I think you can chalk up one more axis. :-)

I don't think you will find me opposing you on the wanting to be
logical axis. In that respect, in your usage you are rather more
lax than I am, I think.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp