Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs2.digex.net with SMTP id AA29194 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Sat, 21 Jan 1995 07:34:17 -0500 Message-Id: <199501211234.AA29194@nfs2.digex.net> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7917; Sat, 21 Jan 95 07:36:08 EST Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2423; Sat, 21 Jan 1995 07:35:50 -0500 Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 13:32:05 MET Reply-To: Goran Topic Sender: Lojban list From: Goran Topic Subject: Re: whiskey lovers X-To: Lojban Listserv To: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: from "ucleaar" at Jan 21, 95 11:18 am Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Sat Jan 21 07:34:37 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu > Lojbab: > > > > I haven't been following the thread real closely, but what's wrong with > > > > lo ka lo glipre cu vusnei la uiskis. cu toljinzi > > > > Property of (an Englishman having taste for whiskey) is non-inherent. > > > I don't understand this ka clause. Whose property is it? > > "ka" properties need not "belong" to any one/thing. Let me phrase this in > > English: > > Fondness for whiskey among Englishmen isn't an inherent property of > > Englishmen or of whiskey (or of fondness, for that matter). > > 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. If {ka broda} expresses the properties responsible for > things being categorizable as (a) broda, then what does {ka koha > nelci kohe} mean? The properties responsible for things being categorizable > as a nelci? For koha being categorized as a nelci? For things being > categorized as a se nelci? For kohe being categorized as a se nelci? There is no x2 in {ka}, at least in my vlaste. I'd say it's the mutual property of all the terbri, one of which was elliptically referred to in x2 of {toljinzi} of my sentence. > > >> 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. > > > > (I won't pretend to figure out how this works under the idea that "lo" = > > "da poi") > > 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}. > ----- > And co'o mi'e. goran. -- Learn languages! The more langs you know, the more incomprehensible you can get e'udoCILreleiBANgu.izo'ozo'onairoBANguteDJUnobedocubanRI'a.ailekadonaka'eSELjmi