From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Jul 31 10:53:10 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:53:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KOcKs-0007JB-Pl for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:53:10 -0700 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.153]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KOcKq-0007Ip-4P for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:53:10 -0700 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id e12so332710fga.0 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:53:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=s+KqRuu/jsZyEO6cfDNK1mn/9MH/Z300VSyhKqMp0Kg=; b=fklRjDNWr6OccWaJaztSQ2uMIiBGPOz5DDT+oazNu7/QKuBPluUxM+zPd4Cy04GK7C 8JTCnf5M8EMtGq+Leb8kVS+BGHJz6UdQGKoOTMkBOVWUcTYC9xvYgp/XQh+QIXsYbUOp E1ToI5mccek9JONxQuCb2pGaI3uqMFZADjImU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=pGc0SHhdBeuO5XnXFi/w6eE8CTsH9gE8OnXYSYPHsH+ZMvebjXRRszN5F9kc3rPANW WDeXlemtJdFjGaJqzXTK4jnpcjO0BvzBL1tHOXMIAHOu0PgFlDHqoYy9+VoOC/I21mT4 x4ULNNJXncyfuSetaRvDG7Oy0F6XyKuc/3d9A= Received: by 10.86.60.15 with SMTP id i15mr6364003fga.43.1217526783156; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:53:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.89.11 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:53:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560807311053oaf60df5vda39440e419a1e8@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:53:03 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Hello, and owning things.. In-Reply-To: <901831208.20080731182615@antelope.nildram.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1601038384.20080731174443@antelope.nildram.co.uk> <901831208.20080731182615@antelope.nildram.co.uk> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 745 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners On 7/31/08, Mark wrote: > MA> xorlo is the proposal to change the meaning of le and lo. Not exactly their meanings, just the assumption that they carry hidden default quantifiers with them. > But that page also emphasised something > that I wondered about to - if I say "le melbi ninmu" it means a woman > that I'm thinking of, who I think is beautiful (and is a woman!), It's a reference to something(s) or someone(s) that you describe as "melbi ninmu". You presumably are choosing that description because you think it will be useful for your audience to identify the thing(s) you have in mind. > but > potentially no-one else does. Because there is no universally agreed > standard of beauty, is it illegal to say "lo melbi ninmu"? "lo melbi ninmu" is a perfectly good way to talk about "beautiful women", be that in general or the particular ones in a given context. > I know > that melbi can take the "standard of beauty" as an argument but > inserting that into "lo melbi ninmu" would require a relative clase > (right?) If you want to call attention to a standard explicitly, you could say "lo melbi be fo da ninmu". Doing do so would suggest to me that the standard was somehow remarkable, so it probably wouldn't work very well as a compliment. mu'o mi'e xorxes