From cowan@ccil.org Mon Jul 10 16:17:45 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1842 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2000 23:17:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Jul 2000 23:17:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO locke.ccil.org) (192.190.237.102) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Jul 2000 23:17:44 -0000 Received: from localhost (cowan@localhost) by locke.ccil.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA17024; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:55:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:55:24 -0400 (EDT) To: And Rosta Cc: lojban@egroups.com Subject: RE: "which?" (was: RE: [lojban] centripetality: subset vs component In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, And Rosta wrote: > > The problem was a lack of theory, not a lack of opportunity. > > That's interesting to discover. It didn't stop Lojban in other areas, e.g. > Q-kau (but also many others). Q-kau was a desparate accommodation to a problem that, the more I (as chief grammarian) thought about it, the more muddled I got. Even asking Linguist List about it didn't help: natlangs are just as muddled. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org C'est la` pourtant que se livre le sens du dire, de ce que, s'y conjuguant le nyania qui bruit des sexes en compagnie, il supplee a ce qu'entre eux, de rapport nyait pas. -- Jacques Lacan, "L'Etourdit"