From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Oct 08 08:10:05 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_0); 8 Oct 2002 15:10:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 55118 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2002 15:08:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Oct 2002 15:08:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Oct 2002 15:08:43 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17yw2E-00082y-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 08 Oct 2002 08:12:34 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17yw1c-00081F-00; Tue, 08 Oct 2002 08:11:56 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 08 Oct 2002 08:11:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17yw1Y-000816-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 08 Oct 2002 08:11:52 -0700 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g98FFpGZ044736 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:15:51 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g98FFojw044735 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:15:50 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:15:50 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: a new kind of fundamentalism Message-ID: <20021008151550.GA44523@allusion.net> References: <137.15791ab7.2ad43e25@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <137.15791ab7.2ad43e25@aol.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 1985 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out --qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 09:56:53AM -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 10/7/2002 8:06:01 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 > lojban-out@lojban.org writes: > << > > Ok; I agree that there is a gramatical difference, but not that > > there is a real semantic difference (except perhaps in which part > > of the claim is more important (the fact you are happy, or whatever > > the other claim is))... > >> > Nope. {ui [bridi]} is true or false depending on [bridi], and goes the s= ame=20 > way. If you are not, in fact, happy, you may be misleading but you haven= 't=20 > said anything false.=20=20 > {mi gleki lenu [bridi]} is true or false depending upon your attitude (ha= ppy=20 > or not) about the event of [bridi]. Typically, it would also be false if= =20 > that event did not occur, but this is deputable. But certainly the mere = fact=20 > that the event did occur would not make {mi gleki...} true. It wouldn't be false if the event didn't occur because it uses "le". I agree that the "pure emotion indicators" don't affect truth value... This does *not* count as a real semantic difference. If this is all you have, I don't see how you are justifed in calling it the "original malglico". --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9ovamDrrilS51AZ8RAniNAJ9tx4CwNZZBjduw0TeqGGxGG9t/HwCbBTDG DkZsYTBNLyYM085+2Dw9oNs= =neRP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk--