Message-Id: <199501312238.AA18116@nfs2.digex.net>
Date:         Tue, 31 Jan 1995 20:33:18 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Subject:      Re: replies re. ka & mamta be ma
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Sat, 28 Jan 95 00:24:38 T.)
Status: RO

Goran:
> > > > The claim is that most of the englishmen with a taste for w. acquire the
>                         ~~~~
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > taste, or that most instances of the taste of an englishman for w. are
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > acquired. Is that precise enough? The translation originally appealed
> > > > (though it has palled) because of the use of "*an* englishman": I
> > > > wanted to see if it could somehow be translated by "lo gicnau".
> > > so'e glipre cu pu'o ja noroi vusnei la .uiskis.
> > > or, more precise, and using nice sexist zo'o word:
> > > so'e gicnau cu pu'o jonai noroi vusnei la .uiskis.
> > It appears to me that your versions are claims about most englishmen,
> > whereas the claim I have described is not about most englishmen.
> ?!?!? .uanaicai zo'o Who is nuts here? You said in the previous post
> that it's about most Englishmen. Now you say it's ba'e not about
> most Englishmen. What is it all about? I'm about to shoot myself with
> the grammar. About time. :)

Whether we use "sohe" or "lahe" doesn't really matter. What matters is that
the category we're  talking about most of the members of, or the
generic member of, is NOT the cat. that contains ALL englishmen, but
rather the *restricted* category formed by the intersection of
englishmen and likers of whisky.

---
And