WikiDiscuss

Robin:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 10:45:39PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > 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".
>
> It's not?
>
> su'o -cure- == su'o da poi -cure-; I'm not seeing a problem.

1. "We discussed at least one AIDS cure"
2. "There is at least one AIDS cure and we discussed it"

These are not synonymous in English, because (2) but not (1) entails
that a cure exists. "mi'o casnu su'o -cure" and "da ge -cure gi
se casnu mi'o" used to mean the same as (2) *. Now they mean the
same as (1). So now, to say (2), one would have to say "ca'a cure"
or something along those lines. (I don't consider this a change
for the worse.)

* They used to be understood as meaning (2), and that used to be
taken for granted. But this is not to say that a careful reading
of CLL could not be made to show that technically they meant (1),
without anyone having realized it.

--And.