From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Tue Sep 04 07:56:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 4 Sep 2001 14:56:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 24280 invoked from network); 4 Sep 2001 14:44:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Sep 2001 14:44:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Sep 2001 14:44:38 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Tue, 4 Sep 2001 15:22:42 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 04 Sep 2001 15:51:07 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 15:50:39 +0100 To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] Instant Evaluation (was: The Knights who forgot to say "ni!" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta I think Jorge means that you should gloss it as "Who/what is the symbol for= John" or just "Who/what John is". I agree with Jorge about the glossing, b= ut not with you about what lu'e means; to me it shd just be the converse of= la'e. --And. >>> Invent Yourself 09/04/01 03:22pm >>> 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 To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com=20 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/=20