From pycyn@aol.com Sat Sep 08 16:51:33 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 8 Sep 2001 23:51:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 4704 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2001 23:51:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Sep 2001 23:51:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r06.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.102) by mta3 with SMTP; 8 Sep 2001 23:51:31 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.153.af0385 (3980) for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2001 19:51:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <153.af0385.28cc08fe@aol.com> Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 19:51:26 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/mixed; boundary="part1_153.af0385.28cc08fe_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_153.af0385.28cc08fe_boundary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_153.af0385.28cc08fe_alt_boundary" --part1_153.af0385.28cc08fe_alt_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/8/2001 5:26:01 PM Central Daylight Time, xod@sixgirls.org writes: > All I can say at this point is that when I use li'i I will, in all cases I > can presently conceive, always put a ce'u in, indicating the role li'i2 > played in the event. > But that isn't what a {ce'u} does. Or was it your idea about {li'i} that I got mixed with and's about {si'o}? That the second place of {li'i} was application of a lambda function to an argument? That seems at variance with what the li'i2 is defined as, even if the experience description does always have to mention the experiencer, though it is a cute way of saying what role the experiencer played, I suppose. --part1_153.af0385.28cc08fe_alt_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/8/2001 5:26:01 PM Central Daylight Time,
xod@sixgirls.org writes:


All I can say at this point is that when I use li'i I will, in all cases I
can presently conceive, always put a ce'u in, indicating the role li'i2
played in the event.

But that isn't what a {ce'u} does.  Or was it your idea about {li'i} that I
got mixed with and's about {si'o}?  That the second place of {li'i} was
application of a lambda function to an argument?  That seems at variance with
what the li'i2 is defined as, even if the experience description does always
have to mention the experiencer, though it is a cute way of saying what role
the experiencer played, I suppose.  

--part1_153.af0385.28cc08fe_alt_boundary-- --part1_153.af0385.28cc08fe_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-yc03.mx.aol.com (rly-yc03.mail.aol.com [172.18.149.35]) by air-yc03.mail.aol.com (v80.17) with ESMTP id MAILINYC33-0908182601; Sat, 08 Sep 2001 18:26:01 -0400 Received: from n19.groups.yahoo.com (n19.groups.yahoo.com [216.115.96.69]) by rly-yc03.mx.aol.com (v80.17) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINYC31-0908182544; Sat, 08 Sep 2001 18:25:44 -0400 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-10603-999987942-pycyn=aol.com@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.4.56] by mw.egroups.com with NNFMP; 08 Sep 2001 22:25:43 -0000 X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 8 Sep 2001 22:25:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 92017 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2001 22:25:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Sep 2001 22:25:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta3 with SMTP; 8 Sep 2001 22:25:39 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.6/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f88MPdR04291 for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2001 18:25:39 -0400 (EDT) To: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: From: Invent Yourself MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 18:25:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: RE: [lojban] li'i (was: Another stab at a Record on ce'u Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, And Rosta wrote: > Xod: > > On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, And Rosta wrote: > > > > > > > I don't deny that there must be an experiencer. I just > > > > > strongly question whether the experiencer must be involved in the > > > > > experience bridi. > > > > > > > > How can I experience a bridi if I am not in one of its places? > > > > > > I don't know how to answer that except by the obvious strategy of > > > offering you a bridi with all places filled by something other than > > > the experiencer, and asking if the situation described (e.g. pc's > > > sun setting over the lake, or my Northern Ireland conflict) is > > > experienceable, and hoping that you will say Yes. > > > > 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? > > Maybe I watched the going. Maybe I felt it. Maybe I felt its wake. Maybe > I experienced it be reading about plans for it. And so on and so on. In English we make a distinction between experiencing something and just hearing of it. Where do you want to set the threshold for lifri? So weak that it includes any imaginative inkling, any hazy notion, any awareness of a possibility? By your final paragraph I have experienced pregnancy hundreds of times. But in English I can never experience pregnancy. In my sense of reasonable Lojban, {li'i pazvau FA ce'u kei be mi} only when FA = fe; only as the fetus. And even there, since I have no memory of it, whether I really experienced it is a matter of debate! How can I have experienced something of which I had no awareness? "Experience" seems to require the necessary conditions of Participation and Awareness. The gismu list says "x2 happens to x1". This suggests to me that x1 is integrally related to the event, not a peripheral bystander. I so cannot conceive of "experiencing" an event that I was not involved in, that I have nothing more to argue. All I can say at this point is that when I use li'i I will, in all cases I can presently conceive, always put a ce'u in, indicating the role li'i2 played in the event. ----- "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 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --part1_153.af0385.28cc08fe_boundary--