Subject: Re: [lojban] {kai'i}

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 23:12:39 -0400 (EDT)

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 [email-masked]
One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore
--Douglas Hofstadter