Re: na`e

[HACKER G N <c9709244@ALINGA.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>]

On Mon, 22 Sep 1997, Arik Puder wrote:

> HACKER G N wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 22 Sep 1997 bob@MEGALITH.RATTLESNAKE.COM wrote:
> >
> > > jorge@intermedia.com.a wrote:
> > >
> > >    >     lo mlatu ca'o vreta lo stizu
> > >    >       <What is truly a cat is in the continuative of
> > >    >       reclining/resting on what is truly a chair.>
> > >
> > >    Yes, perhaps I would prefer "some cat sits on some chair" for
> > >    the English for that.
> > >
> > > This is an old argument.  Suffice to say that I think it is practical
> > > in everyday language to distinguish between that which I designate
> > > {le} and that which really is {lo}.
> >
> > But that's kind of the problem, in a way. I must admit, I don't like the
> > use of "lo" to mean "the", but by the same time I can understand wanting
> > to distinguish that which you describe from that which really is, and it
> > seems irritating that Lojban should arbitrarily lump together into one
> > word what is clearly two separate concepts: what is described versus what
> > really is, and what you specifically have in mind as an instance of
> > something versus no instance in particular. You have chosen as more
> > important the really-is aspect of "lo", while most other people tend to
> > choose the nonspecific aspect of it, but that they exist together in the
> > same word is an unavoidable reality.
> >
> > Lojban really forces you not to talk about specific things that really
> > exist, which seems not only a limitation, but a veritable attack on our
> > conceptual faculty to know specific things about the universe. Maybe the
> > philosphical skepitcs are right and this is true, but if so, it should be
> > left up to the individual to decide this and not preprogrammed at the
> > linguistic level, I think.

> > Regards,
> >
> > Geoff
> unsubscribe

Unsubscribe? That's not very nice. Or am I supposed to pretend that Lojban
is perfect?

Geoff