History: mi ca xusra noda

Source of version: 1 (current)

__<- ((saying nothing))__ .i mi ca xusra noda was recently sighted ((xei|here)) * Eh, yes, but there is such a thing as Universe of Discourse :-) -- ((nitcion)), who said it ** So what was it meant to say, if not nothing? - ((kreig.daniyl.)), the one who has never been to Australia *** Nothing out of the things pertinent. This doesn't excuse it, btw; but it does mean that, when you say ''mi cusku roda'', you don't mean you're speaking whales, or negative numbers. **** You should though. If you really want ''everything'' to mean just the things you're thinking of, you have ''le romei'' and ''le ro da''. -- ((Adam)) ***** The 'Universe of Discourse' approach is advocated in the Book, and honestly, it's far more useful to have ''mi cusku roda'' not include whales and negative numbers. I'm cool with that assumption being defeasible, of course. -- nitcion ****** But in ''mi cusku roda'', ''mi'' is a sumti. Does ''mi cusku roda'' imply that ''mi cusku mi''? If not, how do you exclude ''mi'' from your universe of discourse and still refer to it? **** So what was your message when you said it? I agree that ".i mi djuno noda" should mean you know nothing about what is being said, but if you have nothing to assert on the topic what does it mean to say so in Lojban? Personally I feel that if you mean ''no comment'' that should be ".i nei mu'o" as ''no comment'' in English means "no comment other than this one," but I'm not entirely sure if that was what you meant. - la ((kreig.daniyl.)), who still thinks of ((sralo|Australia)) as the largest "anglo-saxon island" **** You're right on what I said, and like I said, I was wrong to say it... kinda. But it's wrong to say "mi xusra noda" is intrinsically paradoxical (as is implied by listing it here), because the default interpretation of what ''da'' can refer to is contextual. -- nitcion ***** But then we are suddenly discussing your assertions, and the fact that you assert it is within the new universe of discourse, right? ***** I don't follow. Are you saying it's still paradoxical, then, because ''da'' must refer to all my current assertions, as opposed to all my current relevant assertions? ****** Once you say ''.i mi ca xusra noda'' we are discussing whether you are asserting, not just Australia. So, you are asserting something that is now within the universe of discourse. If it wasn't meant to be paradoxical, try ''.i ma na xusra tu'a di'u'' - I am asserting nothing about your comment. But if you think about it, if you really have nothing to say and have not been asked a direct question, you have no reason to say ''.i mi ca xusra noda'' unless you intend it to carry some assertive value and thus be paradoxical. Also, listing it under ((saying nothing)) means I think of it as a way to say nothing, or at least say you aren't. It could also go on a page of ((lojban paradoxes)), but there isn't one yet. - ((kreig.daniyl.)), who also hasn't been to England or any other anglo-saxon island