Message-Id: <199501211808.AA06475@nfs2.digex.net>
Date:         Sat, 21 Jan 1995 18:07:36 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Subject:      Re: whiskey lovers
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Sat, 21 Jan 95 13:32:05 T.)
Status: RO

Goran:
> There is no x2 in {ka}, at least in my vlaste.

There is in my list, dated 6.1.93 and labelled as baselined at the
start of the file.

> I'd say it's the mutual property of all the terbri,

I wouldn't know what a property is, then.

> > > >> No, because there is no claim that the typical-generic englishman likes
> > > >> whisky, though I concede that the claim is made that the
 typical-generic
> > > >> englishman that likes whisky acquires the liking.
> > > >Oh, you wanted THAT claim? :) Even simpler: {lo'e glipre cu pu'o vusnei
> > > >la .uiskis.} should state that... Typical Englishman is (at least at one
> > > >time) before beginning to like whiskey.
> > > Goran is of course from a place thatuses perfective tenses, so I tend to
> > > trust this.  I would have said:
> > > lo'e glipre cu binxo lo vusnei be la .uiskis.
> > It should be {lohe glipre poi vusnei la .uiskis} or {lohe nu lo glipre
> > vusnei la .uiskis}. No claim is being made about the typical Englishman,
> > only about the typical E that likes whisky, or the liking for whisky
> > of the typical E.
> Decide what you want :) This interpretation was in my mail prior to this
> attempt, one with {ja} between {pu'o} and {noroi}.

I haven't changed my mind. So far, I think, your versions have just
pertained to lohe glipre.

---
And