From pycyn@aol.com Wed May 30 12:31:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 30 May 2001 19:31:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 1059 invoked from network); 30 May 2001 19:31:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 May 2001 19:31:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r08.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.104) by mta2 with SMTP; 30 May 2001 19:31:56 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.f6.aac8ba8 (14383) for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 15:31:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 15:31:51 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: Grammar Clarifications To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_f6.aac8ba8.2846a4a7_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_f6.aac8ba8.2846a4a7_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/30/2001 9:44:33 AM Central Daylight Time, jcowan@reutershealth.com writes: > Essentially that there was no way of representing what > "me" means now, whereas what "me" used to mean is just > "steci be" = "pertains to". > Yes, this is what I thought I recalled. Except that {steci be} does not do justice to the first use JCB gave to it (though it surely passed through this in the traditional JCB path from light to miasma): The first two uses were {ti me la Kraislr karce} (translating to Lojban, I hope) and {la loglan se kevna lo me zo me} "There is a me-shaped hole in Loglan" (JCB inevitably thought this the cleverest use of "me," and it does have a charm). The point is that {me} was originally about words and their application to things or, rather, the things they were applied to, not about the referents of the expressions that followed the {me}. The phenomenon intended is common enough to deserve a cheap means (and {me} now seems virtually useless, given {du} and other ordinary features). --part1_f6.aac8ba8.2846a4a7_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/30/2001 9:44:33 AM Central Daylight Time,
jcowan@reutershealth.com writes:


Essentially that there was no way of representing what
"me" means now, whereas what "me" used to mean is just
"steci be" = "pertains to".

Yes, this is what I thought I recalled.  Except that {steci be} does not do
justice to the first use JCB gave to it (though it surely passed through this
in the traditional JCB path from light to miasma):  The first two uses were
{ti me la Kraislr karce} (translating to Lojban, I hope) and {la loglan se
kevna lo me zo me} "There is a me-shaped hole in Loglan"  (JCB inevitably
thought this the cleverest use of "me," and it does have a charm).  The point
is that {me} was originally about words and their application to things or,
rather, the things they were applied to, not about the referents of the
expressions that followed the {me}.  The phenomenon intended is common enough
to deserve a cheap means (and {me} now seems virtually useless, given {du}
and other ordinary features). --part1_f6.aac8ba8.2846a4a7_boundary--