From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Sep 06 17:01:11 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 7 Sep 2001 00:01:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 14594 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2001 00:00:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Sep 2001 00:00:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.236) by mta3 with SMTP; 7 Sep 2001 00:00:28 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 17:00:22 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.51 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 07 Sep 2001 00:00:22 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.51] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Epictetus, Discourses 1.1 Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 00:00:22 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Sep 2001 00:00:22.0586 (UTC) FILETIME=[16EFD9A0:01C13730] From: "Jorge Llambias" la nitcion cusku di'e >You mean, I suppose, that naku is natural and na is not, right? I suspect >so too. I'm not quite in a position to hunt down typological surveys of >negation; And, would you have access to this sort of thing? If you're >really keen to know, I'll see if I can't reattach to the grapevine of >erstwhile colleagues... Just curious. It's a mistake that almost all of us make constantly when not being extremely careful in our use of the language. I'm not sure I shouldn't just give up on the official meaning and start using it consistently with just bridi-tail scope. What's the point of forcing an unnatural usage if we can't manage to follow it even when we try? >Re: te mabla, te zabna > > Your use fits neither, so what is your definition? > >Well, I guess it's in between. Because of the "word" implied in the gismu >list, I take mabla and zabna to be primarily linguistic rather than mental >activities. So their x3 is someone praising or dismissing, not someone >thinking that something is praiseworthy or dismissable. So to you {te mabla} and {te zabna]} are kinds of {cusku}? I can get those as {malcusku} and {zancusku}. (ko'a cusku be le sedu'u ko'e mabla, ko'a cusku be le sedu'u ko'e zabna). How do you get the purely descriptive sense? >But I think both fit Epictetus: because you will have proper Stoic >detatchment and judgement, you will not bother cursing or flattering >anyone --- or for that matter making emotive judgements on things other >than as they really are (which is I assume why the x1 and x2 of mabla and >zabna are distinct) I take x2 to be a property of x1: {la meris cu mabla le ka mamta}, "Mary is lousy as a mother". >Now if only someone would tell me what the Lojban for "The world is >everything that is the case" is... le munje cu pirosi'e loi fatci mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp