Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 18:59:33 -0500
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject: whiskey lovers
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Message-id: <01HM39A8VMS20006J5@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1118
Lines: 30

> > 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