From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Mon Nov 12 07:18:56 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 12 Nov 2001 15:18:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 3409 invoked from network); 12 Nov 2001 15:18:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Nov 2001 15:18:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Nov 2001 15:18:55 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Mon, 12 Nov 2001 14:55:09 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 15:31:02 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 15:30:25 +0000 To: pycyn , lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] observatives & a construal of lo'e & le'e Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin The reason why I can't accept that la has a role in all of this is that there is no determinate route from a "la" sumti to its referent. "la cinfo" could refer to absolutely anything, while "le/lo/lei/loi/lo'e/le'e cinfo" must refer to something intimately associated with lionhood. I had thought you were disputing that -- hence my objection that you quote. But I now gather that you accept this point, in which case hopefully we can agree to reformulate my question as "How do we refer to the play Hamlet without using cmene (or selmaho LA)?". Or alternatively, "What non-LA gadri do we=20 add to "me la xamlet" to make it coreferential with "la xamlet?" The intention is that the answer will then generalize to other categories, such as Cinfo. --And. >>> 11/11/01 11:08pm >>> In a message dated 11/11/2001 2:17:59 PM Central Standard Time,=20 a.rosta@ntlworld.com writes: > But that is not how things are, and it is > frustrating that attempts to progress our understanding are=20 > answered with attempts to demolish what there had hitherto been > consensus about. >=20 My sentiments exactly, but odd coming from you, a master perpetrator.=20 Still my point -- which you essentially endorse in the your letter to AshyA= sp=20 -- is that what a gadri means in a particular context depends in part on ho= w=20 it interacts with other expressions in tha context. Properly used, {la=20 odisix} makes a great prototype (aside from the name chosen) when used with= =20 {mela} and other expressions to make the point. The gadri only give=20 patterns, not content, so they work fine for all the various things that=20 different metaphysicians want them for -- if thye are arranged carefully.