From cowan@ccil.org Mon Jun 12 17:06:30 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10218 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2000 00:06:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 13 Jun 2000 00:06:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO locke.ccil.org) (192.190.237.102) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Jun 2000 00:06:11 -0000 Received: from localhost (cowan@localhost) by locke.ccil.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA29806; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:35:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:35:00 -0400 (EDT) To: Robin Lee Powell Cc: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: lujvo In-Reply-To: <200006122208.SAA17621@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > If I read "lo " where foo translates to "the mother of > God", I'm going to be pissed. It assumes that there is an objectively > observable God _and_ that said God has a mother _and_ that it's the God > you're talking about. Not at all. Since "lo " is the same as "da poi ", it simply means that the speaker is asserting that something is a mother of God along with whatever the bridi asserts. From your point of view, statements about the mother of God are like statements about purple rhinoceroses: uncontroversially false. But there is no *assumption* here. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org "You need a change: try Canada" "You need a change: try China" --fortune cookies opened by a couple that I know