From nicholas@uci.edu Tue Aug 21 17:22:35 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: nicholas@uci.edu X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 22 Aug 2001 00:22:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 13797 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2001 00:20:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Aug 2001 00:20:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO e4e.oac.uci.edu) (128.200.222.10) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Aug 2001 00:20:25 -0000 Received: from localhost (nicholas@localhost) by e4e.oac.uci.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA22052 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 17:20:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: e4e.oac.uci.edu: nicholas owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 17:20:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: To: Subject: Re: [lojban] Retraction, Part 1 (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Nick NICHOLAS On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, John Cowan wrote: > 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. Then I have missed the point of the example, which I thought was illustrating only non-veridicality, not non-prototypicality. Again, I shall go forth and sin no more. > > ... 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? It doesn't; yet again, my misconstrual. The arguments made against {le jipci} still hold for +specific rather than +definite. > > This means in the general case that {ka} is not an intension --- a > > property *of* something, ellipsed or not --- > I don't follow this. I meant, I think Lojbab thinks this --- that you can have {ka} clauses in which none of the places are implied to be {ce'u}. I'm tired of the "he said, she said", though. > > 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.) Happy you remember this. I admit, I have no recollection of saying anything about nu or du'u back then at all. As a metanote to all this: the language may well bear a lot of my imprint, but I don't recall it; it has been seven years, after all since I had anything to do with Lojban. I do not recognise the person who wrote the emails under my name archived at http://www.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban . This is one more reason I'm reticent to take credit for any of the great works that other Nick may have done. -- == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == Nick Nicholas, Breathing {le'o ko na rivbi fi'inai palci je tolvri danlu} nicholas@uci.edu -- Miguel Cervantes tr. Jorge LLambias