From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Sep 19 16:49:21 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 19 Sep 2002 23:49:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 44021 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2002 23:49:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Sep 2002 23:49:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.204) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Sep 2002 23:49:20 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:49:20 -0700 Received: from 200.69.6.51 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 23:49:20 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 23:49:20 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Sep 2002 23:49:20.0689 (UTC) FILETIME=[2C8FE210:01C26037] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.51] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la pycyn cusku di'e >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}. I didn't mean it as a dodge. I still don't understand your objection. mi sisku lo pavyseljirna poi mi pensi ke'a There is a unicorn that I am thinking about, which I seek. This can be true only if there is such a unicorn in the world of the utterance. mi sisku le'e pavyseljirna I seek the unicorn(s) (the one(s) I have in mind). This is like {lo'e} except that the underlying class is {le'i pavyseljirna} instead of {lo'i pavyseljirna}. ><< >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 used to show the simplicity of the proposed interpretation. ><< >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, What is abnormal about the first two? They seem perfectly reasonable to me. The one with {le'e} above would be, in terms of official {sisku}: mi sisku le ka le pavyseljirna zo'u ce'u du py >which is why your {kai-} move looks >a bit like the {sisku} one. The {sisku} move is half of my {lo'e}-move. My {kairsisku} is exactly Lojban's official {sisku}. But I don't propose to ever use {kairsisku}, except in a linguistic discussion about how to define {lo'e}. >It isn't the same -- or at least has not yet >been shown to be. How can it not be the same, when I am defining my {kairsisku} as Lojban's {sisku}? mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com