From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Feb 19 16:24:35 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 20 Feb 2001 00:24:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 95875 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2001 23:41:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Feb 2001 23:41:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.137) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Feb 2001 23:41:39 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:41:38 -0800 Received: from 200.41.210.27 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:41:38 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.210.27] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [lojban] RE:su'u Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:41:38 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Feb 2001 23:41:38.0849 (UTC) FILETIME=[80EEF110:01C09ACD] From: "Jorge Llambias" la and cusku di'e >I wonder why we have all this faffing about with fu'ivla, then, >when we could simply make a zei lujvo. I suppose because zei lujvo are not morphologically one word, so they don't feel right. > > a) la djan krici le du'u da poi ckaji me la margrt tatcr cu nanmu > >(margrt fatcr is a better lojbanization) Did English "th" went to "f" in gismu making? > > 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. But isn't it much like {lo se valsi be zo porpoise}? The difference I see is that in b) all John needs to know about G.E. is her name, whereas if we use {la djordj eliot} he has to understand George-Eliot-ness for the claim to be true. >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. What about {lo se valsi be zo djordj eliot}? Maybe {valsi} and {cmene} are close synonyms? >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)", I don't think John has a belief about George Eliot really, or if he does it is only through the name "George Eliot", so anything not involving the word zo djordjeliot (I just realized it has to be one word if we want to keep using {zo}) shouldn't work. >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 Wouldn't these fit better the Thatcher case? co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.