Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qsvNx-00005YC; Thu, 6 Oct 94 18:09 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0008; Thu, 06 Oct 94 18:09:48 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0006; Thu, 6 Oct 1994 18:09:45 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8379; Thu, 6 Oct 1994 17:06:45 +0100 Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 11:14:35 -0400 Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: Re: A couple of questions X-To: lojban@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199410060453.AAA23937@cs.columbia.edu> (message from Chung-chieh Shan on Thu, 6 Oct 1994 12:49:42 CST) Content-Length: 906 Lines: 21 >Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 12:49:42 CST >From: Chung-chieh Shan >X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu >2) Has it occured to anyone that "needing" something might not imply "needing > to have it"? I might say in English, "I need a clean environment," yet > I don't want to have (i.e., to possess) the clean environment. Perhaps > this is yet another argument for constraining the x2 place of {nitcu} > to abstractions. I sort of thought that "nitcu" didn't imply "ponse"; that you'd need a tanru/lujvo for that in any case (mi nitcu lenu mi ponse.../mi ponse nitcu... or assorted sumti-raising: mi nitcu tu'a ...). So your example would probably be simplest stated as "mi nitcu lenu le vanbi be mi cu jinsa". >---------- >Chung-chieh (Ken) Shan ken@cauchy.math.ntu.edu.tw >"Ay, fashion you may call it. Go to, go to." -- Hamlet ~mark