From xod@sixgirls.org Mon Aug 13 12:23:51 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 13 Aug 2001 19:23:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 70853 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2001 19:22:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Aug 2001 19:22:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Aug 2001 19:22:46 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f7DJMjt20876 for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 15:22:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 15:22:45 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] {lo'i} as a Q-kau solution? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > la xod cusku di'e > > > > mi djuno la djan ce la pol ce la meris > > > I know the set {John, Paul, Mary}. > > > > > > I am not prepared to claim that. > > > >Of course not. But you're giving away the wrong half of the equation! > > > >Although you won't say "I know 5", you will say "I know 2 + 2". > > Not in Lojban I won't. I will say {mi djuno le du'u makau > du li resu'ire}. > > {mi djuno li resu'ire} is as nonsensical as {mi djuno li vo} > the way I understand it. Context and common sense should compel you to evaluate the math lazily. The fact that the listener might not know the answer means that the sentence should not be evaluated as it is heard. mi djuno lu'e le klama Since the listener might not know that John is the goer, this should be interpreted as "I know the symbol of the goer", and not "I know John". ----- "I have never been active in politics or in any act against occupation, but the way the soldiers killed Mizyed has filled me with hatred and anger. Now I'm ready to carry out a suicide attack inside Israel," one of the witnesses said.