Subject: Re: [lojban] Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 18:23:30 EDT

In a message dated 6/13/2001 9:35:12 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] 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.