From pycyn@aol.com Sat Sep 08 15:04:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 8 Sep 2001 22:04:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 26126 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2001 22:02:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Sep 2001 22:02:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d09.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.41) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 Sep 2001 22:02:04 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.7d.1a96ad61 (18710) for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2001 18:02:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7d.1a96ad61.28cbef59@aol.com> Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 18:02:01 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] li'i (was: Another stab at a Record on ce'u To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_7d.1a96ad61.28cbef59_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_7d.1a96ad61.28cbef59_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/8/2001 4:44:52 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: (I think this is actually xod, but I've lost count in the many layers of pointies) > > In claiming {li'i klama} has a meaning which is not one of {li'i klama FA > > ce'u}, you're claiming that "I experienced going (klama), but I wasn't the > > goer, nor the origin, nor the destination, the vehicle, or the route". > > What exactly are you experiencing then? > I am worried about {li'i klama FA ce'u} since I can't figure out what it means. It should be a function that gives experiences when I fill in an appropriate FA and a sumti for {ce'u}. It is pretty clearly not an experience itself, since I don't think anyone has experiences that are incomplete in this way, begging for a goer/destination/origin/ route. Alternatively, it is a shorthand for {ro da...li'i klama FA da}, but then the {ce'u} is doubly misleading: it satands for a universal quantified sumti, not a gap, and it claims that such experiences are available for everything (of some contextually defined sort) when generally they are not (most things aren't goers or destinations or origins and certainly not routes). And, of course, reading it for {li'i klama} goes against a consensus that all {ce'u} be shown. So {li'i klama} seems to be {li'i zo'e klama zo'e zo'e zo'e} and introducing {ceu} a mistake. --part1_7d.1a96ad61.28cbef59_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/8/2001 4:44:52 PM Central Daylight Time,
a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:
(I think this is actually xod, but I've lost count in the many layers of
pointies)

> In claiming {li'i klama} has a meaning which is not one of {li'i klama FA
> ce'u}, you're claiming that "I experienced going (klama), but I wasn't the
> goer, nor the origin, nor the destination, the vehicle, or the route".
> What exactly are you experiencing then?

I am worried about {li'i klama FA ce'u} since I can't figure out what it
means. It should be a function that gives experiences when I fill in an
appropriate FA and a sumti for {ce'u}. It is pretty clearly not an
experience itself, since I don't think anyone has experiences that are
incomplete in this way, begging for a goer/destination/origin/ route.
Alternatively, it is a shorthand for {ro da...li'i klama FA da}, but then the
{ce'u} is doubly misleading: it satands for a universal quantified sumti, not
a gap, and it claims that such experiences are available for everything (of
some contextually defined sort) when generally they are not (most things
aren't goers or destinations or origins and certainly not routes). And, of
course, reading it for {li'i klama} goes against a consensus that all {ce'u}
be shown. So {li'i klama} seems to be {li'i zo'e klama zo'e zo'e zo'e} and
introducing {ceu} a mistake. --part1_7d.1a96ad61.28cbef59_boundary--