From pycyn@aol.com Fri Feb 01 11:59:07 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 1 Feb 2002 19:59:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 71482 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2002 19:59:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Feb 2002 19:59:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d07.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.39) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Feb 2002 19:59:05 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.26.) id r.76.16adba47 (4402) for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:58:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <76.16adba47.298c4d6e@aol.com> Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:58:38 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] utterances To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_76.16adba47.298c4d6e_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_76.16adba47.298c4d6e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/1/2002 12:35:49 PM Central Standard Time, xod@sixgirls.org writes: > > then what IS a sigh, if not an utterance? how do you define 'utterance'? > > steven lytle > > > Given the sacred axiom that UI has no truth value, every surrounding > definition will be distorted to maintain the faith. First "proposition", > and now "utterance". > So far as I can see, no one has messed with utterance other than Lytle and he just asks the question. Surely, a contented (let's suppose) sigh is different from {mi gleki} and also from {ui}, they they are said. I would sum that difference up by calling the latter two utterances, but I won't insist on it . It is clearer as {selcusku} and {selbacru}, ignoring how to say that in English. --part1_76.16adba47.298c4d6e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/1/2002 12:35:49 PM Central Standard Time, xod@sixgirls.org writes:


> then what IS a sigh, if not an utterance?  how do you define 'utterance'?
> steven lytle


Given the sacred axiom that UI has no truth value, every surrounding
definition will be distorted to maintain the faith. First "proposition",
and now "utterance".


So far as I can see, no one has messed with utterance other than Lytle and he just asks the question.  Surely, a contented (let's suppose) sigh is different from {mi gleki} and also from {ui}, they they are said.  I would sum that difference up by calling the latter two utterances, but I won't insist on it .  It is clearer as {selcusku} and {selbacru}, ignoring how to say that in English. --part1_76.16adba47.298c4d6e_boundary--