From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sat Nov 03 19:37:55 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 4 Nov 2001 03:37:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 9364 invoked from network); 4 Nov 2001 03:37:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Nov 2001 03:37:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta02-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.42) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Nov 2001 03:37:55 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.87.20]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20011104033753.SXTP5686.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sun, 4 Nov 2001 03:37:53 +0000 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] da, scope, usage Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 03:37:10 -0000 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: <20011102171927.B1527@twcny.rr.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Rob: > Which brings me back to the original thing I asked: why use {da} when > you don't plan to use it again, and only want to claim existence? Why > not {zo'e} or some other KOhA? In classical Lojban, da was the quantified variable. You use it where in logic you use a quantified variable. Maybe that's no longer the case. > > Y'all should pay attention -- especially if And and pc (and throw > in xorxes) > > agree about ANYTHING. > > I think people begin to tune out when the thread starts to involve such > things as "Mr." or "extension", or acronyms like "SAE". I don't know why > I kept reading for so long. "Mr" and "extension" are linguistic/philosophical jargon, but SAE = Standard Average European (invented by Whorf? Or Sapir?), and hence is a broadened version of "(mal)glico", and hence a term of interest to more than just the 'cabal'. > > We over here in TRUTH resent the "non-user" crack and laugh at the > absurdity > > of us as a cabal. > > Well, And was honest enough to admit once that he doesn't use the > language, he only discusses it. Don't know about you. Actually, over the years my occasional use has probably mounted up to a sizable amount. However, usage interests me only as a tool for exploring the language design, so I am content to be labelled a nonuser, or as one of those beings who does not earn kudos, credit and influence through usage. --And.