From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Aug 22 09:35:52 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 22 Aug 2006 09:35:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1GFZDx-0002et-6R for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 09:35:33 -0700 Received: from web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.119]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1GFZDv-0002el-26 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 09:35:33 -0700 Received: (qmail 54338 invoked by uid 60001); 22 Aug 2006 16:35:29 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=azJlMPqMHhrrJRSFqWdDvwQ8YDQAORK6rKNoSltRDzzAqRmgEI+dYEUlDh3008y3q3srLfJiH2hYIEef1lsZl6DhIJhYUWUi+b96MVaNWRuBeGSrk4QWXnQIt+hBml43vIw8Q4Kf+bbn4Z4BBtzAwlZ8RtIrA8+TJpHedTMFhRw= ; Message-ID: <20060822163529.54336.qmail@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.230.156.207] by web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 09:35:29 PDT Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 09:35:29 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: Puzzle To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <12d58c160608220717o2daa27f8s6b030e86fb3c0963@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-archive-position: 12543 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list And yet {ka'e} seems to have been used (as its form suggests) for the impersonal "It is possible that" while {kakne} does seem to have that personal capability reading -- innateness being just one part of the range of sources of capability (part of {kakne3}. --- Adam COOPER wrote: > On 8/22/06, Matt Arnold wrote: > > > > On 8/22/06, Adam COOPER wrote: > > > On 8/22/06, Yanis Batura wrote: > > > > > > > "I can read and write" is translated to Lojban as > > > > > > > > (1) mi kakne lo nu tcidu kei .e lo nu ciska > > > > > > > > > I have a sneaking suspicion that {kei} is not needed there, and that > > that > > > was recently fixed in jboski [?!] > > > > > > > The more intuitive version, > > > > > > > > (2) mi ka'e tcidu je ciska > > > > > > > > is wrong. What does it mean? > > > > > > > > > "I am-innately-capable-of reading and writing." A wise lojbanist pointed > > out > > > a few months back that {ka'e} does not have the same basic meaning as > > > {kakne}. > > > > > > mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan > > > > > And what is that difference in basic meaning? > > -epkat > > > Innateness, which is part of the definition of {ka'e} but not of {kakne}. > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.