From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Tue Nov 05 16:12:44 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 6 Nov 2002 00:12:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 27530 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2002 00:12:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Nov 2002 00:12:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Nov 2002 00:12:44 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 189DoK-00073p-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 05 Nov 2002 16:12:44 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 189DoH-00073Y-00; Tue, 05 Nov 2002 16:12:41 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 05 Nov 2002 16:12:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin02.spray.se ([212.78.193.8] helo=mrin02.st1.spray.net) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 189DoC-00073K-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 05 Nov 2002 16:12:36 -0800 Received: from lmin04.st1.spray.net (unknown [212.78.202.104]) by mrin02.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B21AC2368DB for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 00:57:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-68-242.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.68.242]) by lmin04.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 696241C09B for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 00:57:58 +0100 (MET) To: Subject: [lojban] Re: What the heck is this crap? Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 23:59:48 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20021105183900.B73242-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-archive-position: 2430 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin xod: > On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > This drastically changes the semantics of lojban as I understand them > > As I engage in real-time conversations in the language, albeit with word > > lookup, I feel that I understand the basic semantics pretty well > > > > But it gets worse. According to Nick Nicholas, in a recent email to me: > > > zo'e = su'o de > > > > ro bangu cu selfi'i zo'e = ro da poi bangu; su'o de zo'u: da selfinti de > > (This is read as there being a possibly distinct de for each da) > > > > zo'e finti ro bangu = su'o de; ro da poi bangu zo'u: de finti da > > (This is read as there being at least one de inventing all da) I don't recall this having been agreed. Certainly "zo'e = su'o de" is not correct. zo'e merely entails su'o de, but zo'e could be interpreted as "le du" (= "it"), and indeed often (quite rightly) is. As for whether the second sentence could be read as allowing different inventions to have different inventors, that'd be something to discuss on Jboske. I can see arguments for both sides, though my gut feeling is to agree with Nick. Of course, if the zo'e is left implicit, you don't know whereabouts it should be inserted relative to other sumti, so the problem arises only for explicit zo'e. I don't see why you're reacting with such horror. People are always discovering issues like this that nobody has thought of before. It's inevitable that this happens. --And.