From pycyn@aol.com Wed May 24 18:56:44 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25235 invoked from network); 25 May 2000 01:56:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 25 May 2000 01:56:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo19.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.9) by mta3 with SMTP; 25 May 2000 01:56:43 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.9.) id a.dd.4c8f742 (4558) for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 21:56:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 21:56:34 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] le ga'irfanta To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41 From: pycyn@aol.com In a message dated 00-05-24 14:59:09 EDT, you write: << rom: jjllambias@hotmail.com (Jorge Llambias) To: lojban@egroups.com la pycyn cusku di'e > << > I know the book says > otherwise, but {pisu'o} just doesn't make sense to me, for > the same reason that {ro} has to be the default for {le}. >> >I'm torn, too. On the other hand, we both were advocating on another >thread >that the way to deal with dogs biting men was shift over to at both >places, so we did not have to have all dogs biting all men to make the >ordinary case work right. Yes, but I don't see a contradiction. When the dogs as one whole bite the men as one whole there is no need for each dog to bite each man. When the books as one whole are published, there is a need for each book to be published, especially if they are completely published. For something to bite, only one mouth is needed. What is needed for something to be in print? Is it enough that one part of it be in print? This is about the meaning of the predicate word, but the referent argument is in both cases the whole mass. >> O Drat! Is it time for the semiannual go'round about the relation between the properties of masses and the properties of the members of the underlying classes? I haven't written the last one up yet! Well, I won't start it. I find your argument convincing until I try to formulate the general principle and then it does not seem to work. So, I'll stick with "le or piro lei would have been safer."