From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Mon Dec 11 10:14:40 2000
Return-Path: <arosta@uclan.ac.uk>
X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk
X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 11 Dec 2000 18:14:39 -0000
Received: (qmail 6909 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2000 18:14:36 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 11 Dec 2000 18:14:36 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta2 with SMTP; 11 Dec 2000 18:14:36 -0000
Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Mon, 11 Dec 2000 18:00:10 +0000
Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 18:13:13 +0000
Message-Id: <sa351939.072@gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 18:12:51 +0000
To: pycyn <pycyn@aol.com>, lojban <lojban@egroups.com>
Subject: sisku (was: Re: bringing it about)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
From: And Rosta <arosta@uclan.ac.uk>

1. PC, your every apostrophe (graphically speaking, that is) shows up to me=
either as
a-circumflex Euro-symbol TM-symbol in horrilbe HTML format, or else as G C-=
cedilla=20
O-umlaut in non-HTML. Something is deeply shafted [=3Dscrewed, in USEnglish=
].

2.=20
> Ofcourse, none of this applies to {sisku}, which got defined in=20
> this messy way inan earlier attempt to avoid the same problem that {tuG=
=C7=D6a}=20
> finally solve moregenerally, and probably should be moved back to somethi=
ng=20
> more natural, sinceit is hard to say what one wants now.-=E1The temptatio=
n is=20
> always to move to some other brivla in these cases.
> -=E1Hope we are not going to get bogged down in this one again.

I'm not clear how {tu'a} would help with {sisku}. Indeed, it's hard to see =
any
way of saying in standard Lojban both=20

There's a book that I'm looking for.
I'm looking for a unicorn.

using one and the same selbri. At least Jorge's nonstandard use of {lo'e} s=
ort
of fixes the problem, albeit at the cost of perhaps some haziness about the=
=20
exact logical meaning of {lo'e}.

FWIW, I would prefer not to seek a solution at all, and to use=20
"X troci lo (?) nu X know-the-whereabouts-of Y" instead. Sisku could be lef=
t
as it is, to wither, in principle, from desuetude, and, in practice, to bec=
ome
semantically ambiguous, through misuse.

--And.


