From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Aug 13 13:36:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 13 Aug 2001 20:36:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 68311 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2001 20:35:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Aug 2001 20:35:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.202) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Aug 2001 20:35:50 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 13:35:50 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 20:35:49 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 20:35:49 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Aug 2001 20:35:50.0038 (UTC) FILETIME=[8A03A360:01C12437] From: "Jorge Llambias" la xod cusku di'e >If the understandability of the sentence is not the issue, then I have no >idea what you are discussing or why I would want to waste any time >pondering it. I'm discussing the meaning of the sentence. A sentence need not even be grammatical, much less logically sound, for it to be understandable. >But the fact that the symbol 'John' was referred to not by it's >letters but by its meaning inescapably proves that the speaker knows the >symbol, knows the meaning, and knows that the symbol maps to that meaning. >And that's all the sentence is trying to impart. I think this point has been made before, but anyway: John wrote this book. Paul doesn't know that, but Paul does know John. Does Paul know who wrote this book? No. Does Paul know this book's writer? Yes. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp