From pycyn@aol.com Mon Oct 01 19:18:18 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 2 Oct 2001 02:16:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 94226 invoked by uid 0); 2 Oct 2001 02:16:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 80077 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2001 20:33:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by 10.1.1.224 with QMQP; 1 Oct 2001 20:33:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d03.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.35) by mta3 with SMTP; 1 Oct 2001 20:35:23 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.a5.1c3faa00 (3928) for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 16:35:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 16:35:18 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_a5.1c3faa00.28ea2d86_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_a5.1c3faa00.28ea2d86_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/1/2001 1:34:28 PM Central Daylight Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > When we began this discussion about {le mamta be ce'u} you said "How > else can we talk about functions?". We now have an answer to this, it > seems: by using a lujvo meaning 'function'. Well, we don't have the lujvo yet, but that is a trivial objection. As was that suggestion a trivial response -- we know how to talk about intensional context because we have invented a predicate meaning "is an intensional context"? And so on. To be sure it goes a nice way in the metalanguage, but the question was meant to be object language. > > So we're left with the question of whether {le mamta be ce'u} is > permissible > in main clauses. Jorge and I have stated why we think it isn't. > Well, you've stated *that* you think it isn't. And you have mentioned some locutions that you like that it would affect slightly, though not eliminate. I guess I don't share your esthetic, being logically inclined, so I will proceed as before, seeing whether I can get you to have to swallow my pretty, which you find ugly, after swallowing all your uglies, which you no doubt find pretty. --part1_a5.1c3faa00.28ea2d86_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/1/2001 1:34:28 PM Central Daylight Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:


When we began this discussion about {le mamta be ce'u} you said "How
else can we talk about functions?". We now have an answer to this, it
seems: by using a lujvo meaning 'function'.


Well, we don't have the lujvo yet, but that is a trivial objection.  As was that suggestion a trivial response -- we know how to talk about intensional context because we have invented a predicate meaning "is an intensional context"?  And so on.  To be sure it goes a nice way in the metalanguage, but the question was meant to be object language.


So we're left with the question of whether {le mamta be ce'u} is permissible
in main clauses. Jorge and I have stated why we think it isn't.

Well, you've stated *that* you think it isn't.  And you have mentioned some locutions that you like that it would affect slightly, though not eliminate. I guess I don't share your esthetic, being logically inclined, so I will proceed as before, seeing whether I can get you to have to swallow my pretty, which you find ugly, after swallowing all your uglies, which you no doubt find pretty.
--part1_a5.1c3faa00.28ea2d86_boundary--