From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Aug 13 17:17:49 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 14 Aug 2001 00:17:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 267 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2001 00:17:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Aug 2001 00:17:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.148) by mta2 with SMTP; 14 Aug 2001 00:17:47 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 17:17:47 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.60 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 00:17:47 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.60] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] {lo'i} as a Q-kau solution? Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 00:17:47 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Aug 2001 00:17:47.0819 (UTC) FILETIME=[8C07BFB0:01C12456] From: "Jorge Llambias" la xod cusku di'e >On the other hand, a sentence has no meaning besides that which is given >by its readers (which includes its writer). Right. In Lojban, that meaning so far is mostly defined by prescription. If someone says {mi pensi le du'u ta drani} most people will understand that they want to say "I think that's right", even though the sentence in Lojban is pure nonsense. {pensi} does not mean "think" in that sense, and {ta} refers to objects or situations, not to a topic of discussion. That does not prevent the sentence from being grammatical (in the sense of parser-approved) and understandable. But it is bad Lojban nonetheless. >If the grammar says djuno x2 MUST be a du'u, then djuno lu'e is >grammatically incorrect. I'm not arguing against what can be explicitly >found in a yacc file. I am saying the usage has unambiguous meaning. {djuno lu'e} is parser-correct if that's what you mean. It has (as defined) a similar meaning as {djuno zo}. I wouldn't even mind if it was redefined so that {lu'e ko'a} meant {le du'u makau du ko'a}, which is basically the way you want to use it. What I am saying is that it shouldn't have both meanings. {lu'e la djan} means {zo djan} now, you want it to mean {le du'u makau du la djan}. Likely a more useful meaning, but clearly a different meaning. > > 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. > >Fine. But aren't we talking about the case where Paul says "I know who >wrote this book"? If so, please show me how your case (where Paul doesn't >know who wrote the book) is relevant. It shows that knowing who wrote the book is not equivalent to knowing the book's author. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp