From pycyn@aol.com Thu Aug 23 13:21:34 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 23 Aug 2001 20:21:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 76478 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2001 20:15:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Aug 2001 20:15:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d09.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.41) by mta1 with SMTP; 23 Aug 2001 20:15:48 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.137.810198 (4008) for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 16:15:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <137.810198.28b6be6d@aol.com> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 16:15:41 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] A revised ce'u proposal involving si'o To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_137.810198.28b6be6d_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_137.810198.28b6be6d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The biggest problem I see with this proposal -- aside from its being unnecessary because it is a response to frivolous quibbles -- is that it makes no sense. {ka} and {du'u} are part of the same spectrum (and, indeed, seem now to have become identical up to linguistic conventions, which is OK by me) of semantic functions, while {si'o} belongs with {nu} and {li'i} as concrete real world (whatever that may be) events. Ideas (with one range of exceptions to be dealt with in some detail elsewhere eventually) are mental events in particular people minds, like experiences, and, to a lesser extent, events. These are the realities to which the semantic objects refer (better make that "defer") in various ways. To put {si'o} in with {ka} is either to make all thought abstract and impersonal or all semantics concrete and personal, neither very useful ideas in the long run (monism or solipsism). --part1_137.810198.28b6be6d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The biggest problem I see with this proposal -- aside from its being
unnecessary because it is a response to frivolous quibbles -- is that it
makes no sense. {ka} and {du'u} are part of the same spectrum (and, indeed,
seem now to have become identical up to linguistic conventions, which is OK
by me) of semantic functions, while {si'o} belongs with {nu} and {li'i} as
concrete real world (whatever that may be) events. Ideas (with one range of
exceptions to be dealt with in some detail elsewhere eventually) are mental
events in particular people minds, like experiences, and, to a lesser extent,
events. These are the realities to which the semantic objects refer (better
make that "defer") in various ways. To put {si'o} in with {ka} is either to
make all thought abstract and impersonal or all semantics concrete and
personal, neither very useful ideas in the long run (monism or solipsism). --part1_137.810198.28b6be6d_boundary--