From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Aug 13 12:42:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 13 Aug 2001 19:42:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 75504 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2001 19:42:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Aug 2001 19:42:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.133) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Aug 2001 19:42:35 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 12:42:35 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 19:42:34 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] {lo'i} as a Q-kau solution? Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 19:42:34 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Aug 2001 19:42:35.0081 (UTC) FILETIME=[19ABE390:01C12430] From: "Jorge Llambias" la xod cusku di'e > > {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. It's irrelevant whether anybody knows the "answer" (to what question?). The claim is nonsense. I would probably understand what the speaker _meant_ to say, from context, but that's not the issue here. >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". The symbol of the goer is the name 'John', not the person named 'John'. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp