Return-Path: <cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN>
Message-Id: <9204021002.AA00840@relay1.UU.NET>
Date: Thu Apr  2 08:33:00 1992
Reply-To: Undetermined origin c/o Postmaster <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!POSTMASTER>
Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!LOJBAN>
Comments:     <Parser> W: Invalid RFC822 field -- "(5.64+1.3.1+0.50); id
              AA11572 Thu, 2 Apr 1992 19:". Rest of header flushed.
Comments:     <Parser> E: "From:"/"Sender:" field is missing.
From: Undetermined origin c/o Postmaster <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!POSTMASTER>
To: John Cowan <cowan@snark.thyrsus.com>
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Thu Apr  2 08:33:00 1992
X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN

        From nsn@mullian.ee.Mu.OZ.AU Thu Apr  2 19:49:11 1992
        Received: from munagin.ee.mu.OZ.AU by mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU with SMTP
(911016.SGI)
                id AA03204; Thu, 2 Apr 92 19:49:11 +1000
        Received: by munagin.ee.mu.OZ.AU id AA02500
          (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for nsn@mundil.cs.mu.oz.au); Thu, 2 Apr 1992 19:49:01
 +1000
        Received: from munagin.ee.mu.OZ.AU by mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (4.1)
                id AA29443; Thu, 2 Apr 92 13:48:00 EST
        Received: by munagin.ee.mu.OZ.AU with SMTP id AA23727
          (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <nsn>); Thu, 2 Apr 1992 13:47:40 +1000
        Message-Id: <199204020347.AA23727@munagin.ee.mu.OZ.AU>
        To: And Rosta <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
        Cc: Nick Nicholas <nsn@mullian.ee.Mu.OZ.AU>, nsn@mullian.ee.Mu.OZ.AU
        Subject: Re: Quine text
        In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 01 Apr 92 20:31:35 +0100."
        Date: Thu, 02 Apr 92 13:47:40 +1000
        From: nsn@mullian.ee.Mu.OZ.AU




        And:
        [re: loi remna cu morsi]
        >If lo'i remna is neither male nor female, then this looks like the
        >candidate for "Man is immortal".
        >If loi remna is both male and female (& I reckon this is so), then this
        >is rather iffy for "Man is mortal". "Man is mortal" means the typical
 person
        >('man', to be safe) is mortal. But "loi remna is mortal" means that at
 least
        >some part of loi remna, *but possibly only a single person* is mortal.

        Ah, but {morsi} doesn't mean "mortal". It means "dead". At least some
 part
        of loi remna, but possibly only a single person, was/is/will be dead.
 Let's
        accept that {lo ca morsi} is exclusive of {lo ca remna}. In that case,
 the
        proper phrase is {loi remna ba morsi}: in fact, the proper phrase is {ro
        remna ba morsi}. But as for "Man is immortal", {loi remna roroi na'e
 morsi}:
        at all times, at least part of the mass of loi remna is not already
 dead.

        Having just endured three lectures on adjuncts vs. complements in
 Syntax,
        I remember our discussion here on whether BAI phrases are still there
 after
        you shut the fridge door, and I am endlessly amused :)

        Nick.