From cowan@ccil.org Tue Aug 21 18:53:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 22 Aug 2001 01:53:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 2739 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2001 01:51:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Aug 2001 01:51:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mercury.ccil.org) (192.190.237.100) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Aug 2001 01:51:45 -0000 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 15ZNBN-0002iv-00; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 21:51:49 -0400 Subject: Re: [lojban] Retraction, Part 1 (fwd) In-Reply-To: from Nick NICHOLAS at "Aug 21, 2001 05:20:25 pm" To: Nick NICHOLAS Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 21:51:49 -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 Nick NICHOLAS scripsit: > 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. For Ghu's sake, Nick, please don't take what I say so *very* seriously! Shall I go to the seashore and order the tide to stop coming in? The point that "le ninmu" may be "lo nanmu" is by far the more important, grammatical one; the far less important fact that "lo nanmu" may just conceivably be "lo ninmu" as well is a fact about semantic categories fairly independent of Lojban, and indeed a fact about the real world (some few people are actually intersexes, after all). You have not missed the point of the example. ("I'm one of the most judgmental people I know, and I just HATE that about myself." --Anon.) > 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. I think that what Lojbab thinks is that you can't be sure just how many {ce'u}s there are in a given ka-clause: even if all the normal selbri places are full, one or more *could* be hiding in a (perhaps unexpressed) sumti tcita. I have trouble consistently denying this, and it is quite troubling. The "all ce'us must be explicit" view looks more appealing all the time. I must furiously to think. > I do not recognise the person who wrote the emails under > my name archived at http://www.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban . Funny, I recognize him just fine, and hear your unmistakable voice in both the Lessons and the Lujvo-paper, to pick two handy termini. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org Please leave your values | Check your assumptions. In fact, at the front desk. | check your assumptions at the door. --sign in Paris hotel | --Miles Vorkosigan