From pycyn@aol.com Fri Sep 20 01:33:01 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 20 Sep 2002 08:33:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 81492 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2002 08:33:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Sep 2002 08:33:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d02.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.34) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Sep 2002 08:33:00 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.12c.17d9bdc7 (25711) for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 04:32:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <12c.17d9bdc7.2abc3732@aol.com> Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 04:32:50 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_12c.17d9bdc7.2abc3732_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_12c.17d9bdc7.2abc3732_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/19/2002 6:51:34 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: << > >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}? >> Sorry; I keep assuming you are being consistent. Your {kairsisku} applied to old {sisku} does not obviously give modern {sisku}, partly because modern {sisku}, while messy, dseems to be coherent, while {kairbroda} does not, at least in connection with {broda}. <<><< >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 >> t does not say so, of course, because no one thought up these kinds of weird cases back then, but the assumption was that the property involved was a nuclear one, not one that derives indirectly from something else, like" being thought of by Frank" or "being identical to Charlie." Once the nuclear proeprties are in hand, I suppose we can work out how the others work, but it is certainly notov\bvious that they are the same. << 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. >> Dodge 2 (and the best reason to rethink the be-exist axis). I mean "in this world" as witness my not using any world shifters (assuming there are some agreed upon). But again, I don't want anything in the base discussion to hang on {sisku} since I proably share your disgust with that predicate as now sued (but I think it had to be changed from the old form, which you seem to find acceptable. Odd!) --part1_12c.17d9bdc7.2abc3732_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/19/2002 6:51:34 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

<<

>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}?

>>
Sorry; I keep assuming you are being consistent. Your {kairsisku} applied to old {sisku} does not obviously give modern {sisku}, partly because modern {sisku}, while messy, dseems to be coherent, while {kairbroda} does not, at least in connection with {broda}.

<<><<
>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
>>
t does not say so, of course, because no one thought up these kinds of weird cases back then, but the assumption was that the property involved was a nuclear one, not one that derives indirectly from something else, like" being thought of by Frank" or "being identical to Charlie." Once the nuclear proeprties are in hand, I suppose we can work out how the others work, but it is certainly notov\bvious that they are the same.

<<
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.
>>
Dodge 2 (and the best reason to rethink the be-exist axis). I mean "in this world" as witness my not using any world shifters (assuming there are some agreed upon).

But again, I don't want anything in the base discussion to hang on {sisku} since I proably share your disgust with that predicate as now sued (but I think it had to be changed from the old form, which you seem to find acceptable. Odd!) --part1_12c.17d9bdc7.2abc3732_boundary--