From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Mar 02 13:15:43 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 2 Mar 2001 21:15:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 52017 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2001 21:15:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Mar 2001 21:15:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.177) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Mar 2001 21:15:43 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:15:42 -0800 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 02 Mar 2001 21:15:42 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Meaningless talk Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 21:15:42 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Mar 2001 21:15:42.0892 (UTC) FILETIME=[F0852EC0:01C0A35D] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e >As far as I can figure, one of the topic of discussion was whether >langauage >is langue or parole, the system of rules and items or the actual occasions >of >use. The usual answer is that it is parole primarily and langue is just a >theory about that. Well, I would say it's a great success that you can figure out that much! Probably neither xod nor me would have used the words langue and parole, but that is certainly part of what we discussed. >But Lojban is different -- the langue is set and the >parole is way too small to justify the lange, and, indeed, often goes >contrary to it. Right, but the discussion started about language in general, or English in particular, at least that's what I was talking about. Xod probably was thinking more about the language Lojban. >But we reject the mistaken parole rather than correctin the >langue to justify them. And, as long as lack of syntactic ambiguity is a >goal, we will continue to do so. So, we can say that the aim of the game >is >to express what you mean in grammatical Lojban. I certainly agree, and that is what I try to do. But it is also necessary to try to express things we are interested in, otherwise the game soon becomes too boring. > >"Oy, the expriences are less than the typical opiner in the amount the >paired >necessity observes" Oy, indeed. Just opaque and I can't see what to do >with >it. xorxes says he understands but does not expatiate, alas. {le remei sarcu} was the pair of requirements that xod wanted as definition of a "meaningful sentence". What I understood him to be saying was that these requirements are observed less often than people think. I agree with you that it was not a very successful Lojban rendering. >lo nu fancu pilno no'u mu'a lu ta mlatu li'u > >"sporadically test the function and habitually test the sentence"? I think >this is meant to be something like "give a non-traditional test to the >function and a traditonal one to the sentence" {naltcaci cipra} and {tcaci >cipra}, though I am not too clear what distinction is meant. Why do you take it as a command? I meant that functions rarely get tested, it is their use that usually gets tested. Maybe you were influenced by Loglan where absence of explicit x1 means imperative. >xorxes: > >cpixunri pamoi? and not too clear even then, nor is {xuncpi}, though that >is >at least a bird. {cipnxirundi} is a fu'ivla, although it should have been {cipnrxirundi} to be a regular one. I meant "swallow". {lo cipnrxirundi pamei} = "a single swallow". co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.