From cowan@ccil.org Tue Aug 14 20:04:40 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 15 Aug 2001 03:04:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 9268 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2001 03:04:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Aug 2001 03:04:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mercury.ccil.org) (192.190.237.100) by mta2 with SMTP; 15 Aug 2001 03:04:38 -0000 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 15WqzA-00009s-00; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 23:04:48 -0400 Subject: Re: [lojban] {kai'i} In-Reply-To: from And Rosta at "Aug 15, 2001 02:32:38 am" To: And Rosta Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 23:04:48 -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: > I have a dim sense that you're quoting me here... I don't actually > remember having described your contempt as horribly logical positivist, Such was the case, though. > but certainly that exactly captures my sentiment! I find contempt for > the semantics-pragmatics distinction as incomprehensible [...] A sentiment I return with interest. Semantics, it seems to me, is a theory about what statements *should* mean, but don't. (Except in Lojban.) > > ("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? Ouch. My mother told me, back when I was a yoot, to try to make my jokes more relevant to the situation, but somehow I still seem to manage it very badly... In this case it was a mere verbal association between "refurbishing" and "polishing up". Anyhow, I thought you would like the brightly colored yeos. > 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. Indeed, it *is* a better response, and I'm glad you've given it. (BTW, your mail is still coming from a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com, though you say that address is dead.) -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore --Douglas Hofstadter