Received: from access1.digex.net by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA20160 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Sun, 22 Jan 1995 23:42:27 -0500 Received: by access1.digex.net id AA22609 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for lojbab); Sun, 22 Jan 1995 23:42:25 -0500 Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 23:42:25 -0500 From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199501230442.AA22609@access1.digex.net> To: ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk Subject: Re: whiskey lovers Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Sun Jan 22 23:42:32 1995 X-From-Space-Address: lojbab >X1 of ka is the property, x2 of ka is the possessor. To get a property >without a possessor, you need ziho in x2 of ka. And then I wouldn't >understand it. As of the July 94 abstraction paper and all my understandings, "ka" has never had more than one place. ckaji has 2 places, but they are the reverse - x1 is a thing having a charcateristic, and x2 is that characteristic. You can understand "Beauty" is the abstract (ka melbi) without knowing to what specific "possessor" that abstract is being applied - indeed Beauty is supposed to be indepednent of the things that are beautiful. LIkewise "Faith, Hope, Chaarity. WE have no trouble understanding these without case studies. Why not Whiskeyfondnesss? lojbab