From pycyn@aol.com Sun Aug 19 14:58:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 19 Aug 2001 21:58:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 43380 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2001 21:58:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Aug 2001 21:58:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m09.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.164) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Aug 2001 21:58:07 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.60.129cf93a (4325) for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2001 17:58:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <60.129cf93a.28b1906c@aol.com> Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 17:58:04 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Toward a {ce'u} record To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_60.129cf93a.28b1906c_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_60.129cf93a.28b1906c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/19/2001 3:12:12 PM Central Daylight Time, cowan@mercury.ccil.org writes: > Or 3) Not so -- some {ce'u} may be implicit, and it is up to the > intelligence of the hearer/reader to figure out where they go. > Yes, that is a position too and, indeed, probably what we have been mainly working with lo these many years. But it is hideously soft-line and illogical, since it makes every {ka} phrase vague (or ambiguous, depending on how hard-line you are). The problem is that glorking is unreliable at best: witness pc and cowan on {le ka prami}. Of course, people often are vague about just what they mean, but rarely, I think, ambiguous in just this way. I am relieved to have my reflexive (etc.) worries removed. --part1_60.129cf93a.28b1906c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/19/2001 3:12:12 PM Central Daylight Time,
cowan@mercury.ccil.org writes:



Or 3) Not so -- some {ce'u} may be implicit, and it is up to the
intelligence of the hearer/reader to figure out where they go.


Yes, that is a position too and, indeed, probably what we have been mainly
working with lo these many years.  But it is hideously soft-line and
illogical, since it makes every {ka} phrase vague (or ambiguous, depending on
how hard-line you are).  The problem is that glorking is unreliable at best:
witness pc and cowan on {le ka prami}.  Of course, people often are vague
about just what they mean, but rarely, I think, ambiguous in just this way.

I am relieved to have my reflexive (etc.) worries removed.
--part1_60.129cf93a.28b1906c_boundary--