From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Fri Sep 14 18:07:25 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 15 Sep 2001 01:07:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 75096 invoked from network); 15 Sep 2001 00:33:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Sep 2001 00:33:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta02-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.42) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Sep 2001 00:33:57 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.84.163]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010915003355.NOKH29790.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sat, 15 Sep 2001 01:33:55 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Defining Lojban cmavo (and eventually gismu perhaps) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 01:33:10 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010910004730.00b10f00@pop.cais.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" lojbab: > there never was any effort NOR ANY INTENT to define most > words of the language rigorously prior to usage (because I was afraid that > a) we couldn't do so coherently and b) to do so would be to impose > metaphysical constraints on a language that is trying to remove such > constraints wherever possible - and this is especially dangerous while we > are predominantly English speaking lest malglico leak in), > > As I have noted in another post, attempts to equate ka and du'u and si'o > etc, with each other seem inherently to be imposing metaphysical concepts > on the language. A language is a body of metaphysical constraints; Reality is described in terms of those Notions that the language maps to speakable sounds. The particular instance that you cite, however, is spurious: if ka, du'u and si'o are synonymous, as I have unadamantly proposed, then this is matter only of syntax/phonology and has zero metaphysical implications. Nor does the proposal render unsayable anything that can be said if the proposal were not operative. --And.