From graywyvern@hotmail.com Wed Feb 21 17:19:19 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: graywyvern@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 22 Feb 2001 01:19:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 26933 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2001 01:19:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Feb 2001 01:19:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.237.81) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Feb 2001 01:19:01 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:19:01 -0800 Received: from 209.176.48.20 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 01:19:00 GMT X-Originating-IP: [209.176.48.20] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: Orcutt (again?!) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 01:19:00 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Feb 2001 01:19:01.0178 (UTC) FILETIME=[700F19A0:01C09C6D] From: "michael helsem" >From: And Rosta li'o >Michael, there's something weird about your message formatting alas, when i send from where i'm housesitting this week, the combination of hotmail + a strange PC, wants to run my messages through some kind of crummy Word Perfect thingy first-sorry! > >At any rate, in reply to you, surely DJUNO = savoir and SE SLABU = >connaitre, i thought i might be misremembering... >not the other way around. In general when discussing logical distinctions >I'm >reluctant to sweep it under the carpet by simply defining appropriate >lujvo, >but in this case you may be right that the difference between knowing what >CAT >means and knowing about cats is related to the savoir/connaitre difference. >Still, I remain to be convinced, and it is perfectly possible (and in fact >true) >that ASH and EPAMINONDAS are words that are familiar (se slabu) to me yet >that >have meanings that I know only a small incomplete and inadequate portion >of. > how much of the meaning of a word do you know or need to know? good question. a lot of the words i use, have been acquired through reading; & once in awhile a strict dictionary lookup will show i didn't quite get it... on the other hand, to a scientist or other technician, the definition may be enough to distinguish it from other words, while remaining totally inadequate for scientific purposes. and to name a thing, moreover, does not necessarily require you to know the entire range of variety that that thing may take... on the other hand, as a poet many words to me have the overtone of all the contexts i have read it in, which is far more than any dictionary definition & to me, the truer one. so, i guess what i am saying is, the meaning of a word depends upon but is not limited by usage, because usage is non-uniform. this is probably a long way from the first thought of the thread. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com