From pycyn@aol.com Thu Jun 14 15:23:34 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 14 Jun 2001 22:23:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 62968 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2001 22:23:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Jun 2001 22:23:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d03.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.35) by mta2 with SMTP; 14 Jun 2001 22:23:33 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.70.bae7a55 (18252) for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 18:23:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <70.bae7a55.285a9362@aol.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 18:23:30 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_70.bae7a55.285a9362_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_70.bae7a55.285a9362_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/13/2001 9:35:12 PM Central Daylight Time, xod@sixgirls.org writes: > Certainly it is bad to assume that {.ui ko'a klama} means the same as > > {mi gleki lenu ko'a klama}. > > > > Everybody's agreeing on this, but nobody has explained why to my > satisfaction. > This came in out of order, since I think I have seen answers to it already. However: {ui ko'a klama} is true or false depending upon whether {ko'a klama} is, that is, whether whoever {ko'a} refers to comes or goes somewhere.... It is also evidence that the speaker is happy about this event. {mi gleki le nu ko'a klama} is true or false depending upon whether or not the speaker is happy about an event of whoever {ko'a} refers to coming or going ... It is not evidence that the speaker is happy but a claim that he is. Speaking of the same occasion by the same speaker, one of these could be true and the other false -- the klaming took place but the speaker was not really happy makes the first true and the second false. The first is also misleading, since it gave some evidence that the speaker was happy, but the evidence was just misleading, it turns out. --part1_70.bae7a55.285a9362_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/13/2001 9:35:12 PM Central Daylight Time,
xod@sixgirls.org writes:



Certainly it is bad to assume that {.ui ko'a klama} means the same as
> {mi gleki lenu ko'a klama}.



Everybody's agreeing on this, but nobody has explained why to my
satisfaction.




This came in out of order, since I think I have seen answers to it already.  
However:
{ui ko'a klama} is true or false depending upon whether {ko'a klama} is, that
is, whether whoever {ko'a} refers to comes or goes somewhere.... It is also
evidence that the speaker is happy about this event.  {mi gleki le nu ko'a
klama} is true or false depending upon whether or not the speaker is happy
about an event of whoever {ko'a} refers to coming or going ...  It is not
evidence that the speaker is happy but a claim that he is. Speaking of the
same occasion by the same speaker, one of these could be true and the other
false -- the klaming took place but the speaker was not really happy makes
the first true and the second false.  The first is also misleading, since it
gave some evidence that the speaker was happy, but the evidence was just
misleading, it turns out. --part1_70.bae7a55.285a9362_boundary--