From xod@sixgirls.org Tue Sep 04 07:32:13 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 4 Sep 2001 14:32:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 34937 invoked from network); 4 Sep 2001 14:22:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Sep 2001 14:22:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta3 with SMTP; 4 Sep 2001 14:22:38 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.6/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f84EMV806915 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 10:22:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 10:22:31 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] Instant Evaluation (was: The Knights who forgot to say "ni!" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > la xod cusku di'e > > >Lazy evaluation makes lu'e a lot more useful. It converts {lu'e la djan} > >from "John" to "The Symbol for John". > > I wouldn't have a problem with {lu'e la djan} being defined > as {le du'u makau du la djan}, "who John is" but please, please, > pretty please, don't call it "The Symbol for John" then! Since there is no distinction in English, your sentence makes no sense! When I write "The Symbol for John", do I mean {the sentence which reads "The Symbol for John"}, or do I mean the symbol for "John"? Thus as usual, using different phrasings, we agree. It is > exactly the same confusion as calling the proposition "whether p" > "The Truth Value of p", or calling the proposition "how > much p" "The Amount of p". In English we can easily get away > with those word games, but in Lojban it only creates confusion. > Truth values, amounts or symbols are not really propositions. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes ----- "We should destroy the Muslims' homes while leaving the Christians' homes alone." -- Rehavam Zeevi, Israeli Tourism Minister