From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Tue Aug 14 18:33:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 15 Aug 2001 01:33:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 81521 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2001 01:33:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Aug 2001 01:33:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Aug 2001 01:33:33 -0000 Received: from m56-mp1-cvx2c.bre.ntl.com ([62.253.88.56] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 15WpJN-0007Px-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 02:17:33 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] {kai'i} Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 02:32:38 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal From: "And Rosta" John: > 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. I have a dim sense that you're quoting me here... I don't actually remember having described your contempt as horribly logical positivist, but certainly that exactly captures my sentiment! I find contempt for the semantics-pragmatics distinction as incomprehensible as I find belief in god and the supernatural. That is, they strike me as fundamentally insane. (Mad, I mean; not insanitary.) > ("the yeomen, who were always polishing up their brightly colored yeos > for some idiotic festival or other" -- _Bored of the Rings_) Are there some people blessed with the gift of discerning the pertinence of your quotations, as opposed to merely appreciating their quirky charm? > > 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. I do remember the history. But when Xod said that ka is redundant, and you replied that redundancy is Good Thing, a better response would have been that Xod is right and that of course there are redundancies, given the gradual way the language was made and the way we are still in the process of coming to understand it. --And.