Received: from access3.digex.net by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA28865 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Fri, 20 Jan 1995 18:59:35 -0500 Received: by access3.digex.net id AA19405 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for lojbab); Fri, 20 Jan 1995 18:59:33 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 18:59:33 -0500 From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199501202359.AA19405@access3.digex.net> To: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Subject: whiskey lovers Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Fri Jan 20 18:59:38 1995 X-From-Space-Address: 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). >> 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") lojbab