From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Mon Feb 19 14:13:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 19 Feb 2001 22:13:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 67029 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2001 22:13:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Feb 2001 22:13:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta01-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.41) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Feb 2001 22:13:35 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.252.12.51]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010219221333.ECWU6427.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:13:33 +0000 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] RE:su'u Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:12:36 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Jorge: > la and cusku di'e > > >I may have proposed this at some point, but the proposal I remember was > >to use "ckaji loi ckaji-zei-ortkut" (I forget how to make fu'ivla from > >vowel-initials, so have made a lujvoid. Why > > In fact, you have made a proper lujvo, not a lujvoid. {zei} > glues any word whatsoever into lujvo, including CMENE. > {ka zei ortkut} would work even better, or possibly > {ortkut zei selkai}. I wonder why we have all this faffing about with fu'ivla, then, when we could simply make a zei lujvo. > >I do, however, notice another problem. The contrast between: > > > >3a John (a zoologist) believes porpoises mate for life. > >3b John (an ignoramus) believes porpoises are fish. > > > >can be captured be using "ro porpoise" for (3a) and something > >like "lo se valsi be zo porpoise cu subcategory of the > >category of fish" for (3b). > > > >But how could the similar contrast (4a-b) be captured? > > > >4a John (a conspiracy theorist) believes Margaret Thatcher is a man. > >4b John (an ignoramus) believes George Eliot is a man. > > a) la djan krici le du'u da poi ckaji me la margrt tatcr cu nanmu (margrt fatcr is a better lojbanization) > b) la djan krici le du'u ko'a poi se cmene zo djordj eliot cu ninmu This is no different from "du'u la djordj eliot cu nanmu", AFAICS. I would like to analyse (4b) as something like "The definition of the (or a certain) word GEORGE ELIOT is believed by John to predicate maleness of things-satisfying-the-definition". Hence I would like names to have definitions. OTOH, if baulked I am prepared to settle for John believing that "in all possible worlds if x me la George Eliot (to extent y) then x cu nanmu (to extent y)", or possibly even that "le ka ce'u me la George Eliot kei ka ce'u nanmu" (?????) or, probably better: la djan krici loi du'u ro da zo'u ro nu da me la George Eliot kei nu da nanmu --And.