Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA23247 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Mon, 3 Oct 1994 19:37:33 -0400 Message-Id: <199410032337.AA23247@nfs1.digex.net> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3586; Mon, 03 Oct 94 19:38:50 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8769; Mon, 3 Oct 1994 17:16:23 -0400 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 1994 16:08:13 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: TECH: query re. "specific zohe" X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Mon Oct 3 19:37:37 1994 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu > > > > > "I have something" is "mi zohe ponse". > > > > > But how does one say "I have it"? > > > > > > > > xu mi ko'a ponse > > > > > > I don't know whether you have it. Do you have what? > > > > i li'a le danfu be le do preti > > > > i i'a lu mi ko'a ponse li'u xu > > First you ask "Do I have it?" > Then you say this answers my question. > Then you ask "Clearly, 'Do I have it'?" which makes no sense to me > at all. Let me try to explain, but it's going to be painful. You say: > > > > > "I have something" is "mi zohe ponse". > > > > > But how does one say "I have it"? I want to respond: << "mi ko'a ponse", perhaps? >> But instead, I mistakenly say something else: > > > > xu mi ko'a ponse To which you ask: > > > I don't know whether you have it. Do you have what? I thought you realized that by making this question you were answering your previous one, because clearly you took ko'a to be the specific zo'e. Still, your question was valid. What is it that I have? So I answer: > > i li'a le danfu be le do preti "The answer to your question, of course!" Then I try to make things right: > > i i'a lu mi ko'a ponse li'u xu Ok, "mi ko'a ponse"? This is what I should have answered the first time. The i'a was an acceptance of what I supposed to be your complaint that I hadn't answered properly. > Were you trying to say that "koha" is the 'specific zohe'? Yes, but why should I say it directly when it can be made so much more complicated? > > And > Jorge