From cowan@ccil.org Sun Aug 20 09:00:22 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21591 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2000 16:00:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Aug 2000 16:00:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO locke.ccil.org) (192.190.237.102) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Aug 2000 16:00:20 -0000 Received: from localhost (cowan@localhost) by locke.ccil.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA01242; Sun, 20 Aug 2000 12:50:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 12:50:28 -0400 (EDT) To: PILCH Hartmut Cc: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] fatal ambiguity in European Patent Convention 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 Sat, 19 Aug 2000, PILCH Hartmut wrote: > How would the two versions have read in Lojban? > Is it a simple poi/noi difference? I don't think so. Using "noi" would be tantamount to the wording "Patents shall issue for any invention. An invention is ..." and then the issue would remain whether the second sentence was was a definition, or a mere obiter dictum. But Lojban does have an unambiguous way of marking a definitional sentence: "ca'e". -- 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"