Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 13:32:05 +0100 (MET)
From: Goran Topic <topic@MATH.HR>
Subject: Re: whiskey lovers
In-reply-to: from "ucleaar" at Jan 21, 95 11:18 am
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: Goran Topic <topic@MATH.HR>
Message-id: <01HM3WRNZP06000BEG@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2444
Lines: 54

> 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