From pycyn@aol.com Thu Sep 19 13:45:13 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 19 Sep 2002 20:45:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 48863 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2002 20:45:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Sep 2002 20:45:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m05.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.8) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Sep 2002 20:45:13 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.7e.2dfdd0d4 (4230) for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:45:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7e.2dfdd0d4.2abb9151@aol.com> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:45:05 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_7e.2dfdd0d4.2abb9151_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_7e.2dfdd0d4.2abb9151_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/19/2002 11:03:45 AM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: << > Would you say that official {sisku} is just awkward (my position), > or plain nonsensical? >> Given that choice, I would go with "awkward," too. I would prefer "ill-conceived" and "needlessly opque" (not quite the same as "awkward'). << If it is just awkward, then I don't see a problem on basing a simpler way of doing things on that awkward way. >I note that your examples with {pavyseljirna} for >{santo}, are also simple but generally wrong. How are they wrong? mi sisku le mi pavyseljirna (Can be true if there is something I refer to as "my unicorn") >> The boring repetition of this dodge is one of my stronger reason for going back an rethinking the the whole be-exist axis. I mean, as you well know, "the particular unicorn I have in mind." And if that doesn't work, use {la cerlakolmz}. << mi sisku lo'e pavyseljirna I seek a unicorn. (Can be true even in worlds where I have no hope of ever finding any.) >> This is, of course, the case in contention and cannot be used to support the heretical view as such. It is false in Lojban and iffy in Llamban until {lo'e} is explained in a consistent and coherent fashion. << le mi pavyseljirna zo'u mi sisku le ka ce'u du py lo pavyseljirna zo'u mi sisku le ka ce'u du py mi sisku le ka ce'u pavyseljirna (= mi sisku le ka lo pavyseljirna zo'u ce'u du py) >> Only the third of these is normal Lojban, which is why your {kai-} move looks a bit like the {sisku} one. It isn't the same -- or at least has not yet been shown to be. --part1_7e.2dfdd0d4.2abb9151_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/19/2002 11:03:45 AM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

<<

Would you say that official {sisku} is just awkward (my position),
or plain nonsensical?

>>
Given that choice, I would go with "awkward," too. I would prefer "ill-conceived" and "needlessly opque" (not quite the same as "awkward').

<<
If it is just awkward, then I don't see a problem on basing
a simpler way of doing things on that awkward way.

>I note that your examples with {pavyseljirna} for
>{santo}, are also simple but generally wrong.

How are they wrong?

mi sisku le mi pavyseljirna
   (Can be true if there is something I refer to as "my unicorn")
>>
The boring repetition of this dodge is one of my stronger reason for going back an rethinking the the whole be-exist axis. I mean, as you well know, "the particular unicorn I have in mind." And if that doesn't work, use {la cerlakolmz}.

<<
mi sisku lo'e pavyseljirna
   I seek a unicorn. (Can be true even in worlds where I have no
   hope of ever finding any.)
>>
This is, of course, the case in contention and cannot be used to support the heretical view as such. It is false in Lojban and iffy in Llamban until {lo'e} is explained in a consistent and coherent fashion.

<<
le mi pavyseljirna zo'u mi sisku le ka ce'u du py
lo pavyseljirna zo'u mi sisku le ka ce'u du py
mi sisku le ka ce'u pavyseljirna
(= mi sisku le ka lo pavyseljirna zo'u ce'u du py)
>>
Only the third of these is normal Lojban, which is why your {kai-} move looks a bit like the {sisku} one. It isn't the same -- or at least has not yet been shown to be. --part1_7e.2dfdd0d4.2abb9151_boundary--