From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Aug 13 17:48:48 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 14 Aug 2001 00:48:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 71816 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2001 00:48:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Aug 2001 00:48:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.133) by mta3 with SMTP; 14 Aug 2001 00:48:45 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 17:48:45 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.60 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 00:48:45 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 00:48:45 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Aug 2001 00:48:45.0868 (UTC) FILETIME=[DF8386C0:01C1245A] From: "Jorge Llambias" la xod cusku di'e > > 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. > >The issue is that you are "solving the formula" too quickly; replacing the >lu'e with its solution immediately, ending up with a meaningless result, >and complaining about it. I don't complain, I'm very happy with kau, and I have no problem with your redefined lu'e either, as I don't have much use for the old meaning. >John Cowan was right; you are conflating djuno and slabu. mi djuno la djan >is meaningless; let's get that out of the way. However, can you see that >mi djuno lu'e le tercukta is different? Yes, that means {mi djuno zo djan} (old meaning) or {mi djuno le du'u makau du le tercukta} (your new meaning). >And with respect to the ambiguity, if there is interpretive ambiguity >between {I know who wrote the book} and {I know 'John'}, and the latter is >meaningless, then there is only one meaningful interpretation and no >ambiguity! Ok. If you're happy with context disambiguating between the two possible meanings of {lu'e}, I won't object to your use. We already have a similar situation with {jei} and, to a lesser extent, {ni}. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp