From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Thu May 29 04:20:34 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 29 May 2003 04:20:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.113]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19LLSM-00010t-00 for lojban-en@lojban.org; Thu, 29 May 2003 04:20:26 -0700 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-68-65.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.68.65]) by lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 044853CF15 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 13:19:53 +0200 (MEST) From: "And Rosta" To: Subject: [lojban] Re: antiblotation (was: RE: taksi Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 12:19:39 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030529010935.03f920c0@pop.east.cox.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-archive-position: 5502 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Lojbab: > At 01:40 AM 5/29/03 +0100, And Rosta wrote: > >Lojbab: > > > Slight caveat here: remember that Lojban predicates are "tenseless" > > > >Jimc, who restated in improved form what I said, makes a similar > >point. However, asking "Is this a taxi/taksi" is no different from > >asking "Are you a baby?", "Are you a university student?". Do > >answer that, you have to add tense, yielding, say: "Is this a > >taxi now?", "Are you a baby now?" Clearly you aren't a baby now; > >you're an ex-baby. But is a taxicab sans passenger a taksi now, or > >only an ex-taxi? So really I think my original point stands > > Nora likes to treat all Lojban predicates as being verblike. Thus your > question is better expressed: Is a taxicab sans passenger "taxicabbing" > now, and I don't think that it is. Most likely, it is "once and future > taxicabbing" %^) > > For your later question: you don't hail a taxi, you request the state of > taxi-passengering Fair enough. The important thing is that we agree on the questions to be asked when deciding on a place-structure. That said, I think Craig was closer to the mark regarding the best place structure for "taxi", but I'll deal with that (& its problems) in a later reply. Suffice it to say here, that I see a big difference between a passengerless taxi and something that will have been a passengerful taxi. --And.