From jcowan@reutershealth.com Tue Aug 21 16:29:35 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jcowan@reutershealth.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 21 Aug 2001 23:29:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 32595 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2001 23:29:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Aug 2001 23:29:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.reutershealth.com) (204.243.9.36) by mta3 with SMTP; 21 Aug 2001 23:29:04 -0000 Received: from reutershealth.com (IDENT:cowan@[192.168.3.11]) by mail.reutershealth.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA12203; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 19:30:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3B82EE8D.4000006@reutershealth.com> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 19:28:13 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.3) Gecko/20010801 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nick NICHOLAS Cc: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" , lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Retraction, Part 1 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: John Cowan Nick NICHOLAS wrote: > Are you now saying that the "le ninmu" = "lo nanmu" (transvestite) example > is inapplicable? Or are you saying that given enough context, a > transvestite conventionally described as "le ninmu" can also be seen as > "lo ninmu"? The latter, I think. A TV may not be a prototypical woman, but s/he may be just within the fuzzy ninmu orbital. If we are talking about socially assigned responses to gender, "lo ninmu" may be just the thing. > ... On the other hand, I now see in the refgramm that "le" is defined as > +definite -veridical, and not as I remembered it, +/-definite -veridical. "le" is +specific -veridical. Definiteness is more or less managed by "bi'u". Where does the refgram say that "le" is +definite? > So that I understand this, there is a real possibility that it will take > years rather than months for the content of the lessons to be reviewed and > finalised. Yes? Alas, it is not inconceivable. In a sense, there is no point in officially freezing them until we can afford to print-publish them. > This means in the general case that {ka} is not an intension --- a > property *of* something, ellipsed or not --- I don't follow this. > The Refgramm says "mi djuno lenu la frank. cu bebna" is > 'not quite right', On your recommendation, as it happens. (This is not a criticism.) > Philosophical disagreement. John, I hate to put you on the spot, but you > have yourself acceeded to using the word 'errata'. Should any emendation > to the refgramm treatment of {ka} be left to usage and informal, or > written up and formalised? I think I know what the answer is, though... I have written it up on the wiki, and I believe that I was in error. Whether the *book* is in error is a matter of definitions; I would certainly say that it was. Chapter 1 notes the possibility of "corrections of outright errors", though rather less subtle errors were certainly what was expected. > If I document the standard, the standard is inconsistent (but leans > towards the latter.) IMAO when the Book contradicts itself, the Book is in error, period. -- Not to perambulate || John Cowan the corridors || http://www.reutershealth.com during the hours of repose || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan in the boots of ascension. \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel