From cowan@ccil.org Mon Aug 13 20:16:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 14 Aug 2001 03:16:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 48512 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2001 03:16:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Aug 2001 03:16:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mercury.ccil.org) (192.190.237.100) by mta3 with SMTP; 14 Aug 2001 03:16:37 -0000 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 15WUdD-0007Bj-00; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 23:12:39 -0400 Subject: Re: [lojban] {kai'i} In-Reply-To: from And Rosta at "Aug 14, 2001 02:13:59 am" To: And Rosta Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 23:12:39 -0400 (EDT) Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan And Rosta scripsit: > My view is that truthconditionally, zo'e ought to strictly mean nothing > but "su'o da", with maximally narrow scope. Stronger claims can be inferred > pragmatically. Oho. I'll have to refurbish my horribly logical positivist contempt for the semantics-pragmatics distinction. ("the yeomen, who were always polishing up their brightly colored yeos for some idiotic festival or other" -- _Bored of the Rings_) > Not a good enough argument to motivate new cmavo, though. If someone > proposes a new cmavo to say something that can already be said in a > different way, then people will tend to reject the new cmavo. Granted, but remember the history: ka old, du'u new, ce'u fire-new. We introduced du'u because nu was being overloaded; we introduced ce'u because I finally realized what ka was all about. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore --Douglas Hofstadter