xorlo & mi nitcu lo mikce
> Robin:
> > On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 05:38:55PM -0000, And
> Rosta wrote:
> > > > > To reiterate (for the sake of anyone
> else reading this), I am
> > > > > not saying that it is the job of
> *xorlo* to provide a way of
> > > > > translating "There is at least one AIDS
> cure, and we discussed
> > > > > it". Rather, I'm saying that one would
> like Lojban to have a
> > > > > way of translating it, and that xorlo
> happens not to provide
> > > > > it.
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't provide a way of doing it
> through gadri, but you can
> > > > do it through predicates that require
> their arguments to be in
> > > > the same world.
> > >
> > > Fine, but it is as well to note this as one
> of the major
> > > repercussions of xorlo on lojban.
> >
> > Erm. This has probably been discussed, but
> is there something wrong
> > with:
> >
> > su'o pa lo -cure- be la .aids. cu zasti .i
> ji'a mi'o pu casnu le
> > go'i
>
> The major repercussion is not whether there is
> a way to say it
> (which is an independent issue that could
> perhaps be discussed in
> the context of CAhA tcita), but rather that it
> is no longer the
> meaning of "mi'o casnu su'o -cure". I don't
> have any objection to
> this, but I think it's important to recognize
> and record it.
Well, we could argue about whether it ever was
the meaning of {mi'o casnu su'o cure-}. At
some intermediate time between CLL or rather the
gismu list that was then current and now, {mi'o
casnu su'o cure} would have been judged
unintelligible, since {casnu2} had to take some
kind of abstract, a topic (probably a proposition
but that was largely open). This was a
recognition that otherwise the opacity of
{casnu2} would go unmarked and that leads to
problems. Once that principle got promoted, the
codicil did occur that, if dubious cases were all
covered by abstractions, we could use the simple
form for the cases where the thing talked about
clearly existed here and now. But that did not
catch on . And even the fundamental point that
{casnu2} set up an opaque context which should be
marked fell into dissuetude. Now we have this
curious (incoherent in fact) mixed position: that
{casnu2} is not opaque but that we can use the
simple form without creating problems. I like
the intermediate position with abstracts but
simples for clearly existing things, but the
original is a possible as is the purely abstracts
strategy. The current proposal just doesn't
work.