Subject: Re: [lojban] Retraction, Part 1 (fwd)

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 21:51:49 -0400 (EDT)

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 [email-masked]
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