Received: from mail-d.bcc.ac.uk by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA23819
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <lojbab@access.digex.net>); Mon, 23 Jan 1995 01:39:45 -0500
Received: from link-1.ts.bcc.ac.uk by mail-d.bcc.ac.uk with SMTP (PP);
          Mon, 23 Jan 1995 06:39:35 +0000
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <195223.9501230639@link-1.ts.bcc.ac.uk>
To: lojbab@access.digex.net
Subject: Re: whiskey lovers 
In-Reply-To: (Your message of Sun, 22 Jan 95 23:42:25 EST.)             <199501230442.AA22609@access1.digex.net> 
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 95 06:39:33 +0000
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Jan 23 01:39:50 1995
X-From-Space-Address: ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk

Lojbab: 
> As of the July 94 abstraction paper and all my understandings, "ka" has
> never had more than one place.  

Check your records for a baselined cmavo list dated 6.1.93. 

> You can understand "Beauty" is the abstract (ka melbi) without knowing
> to what specific "possessor" that abstract is being applied - indeed

*specific* is the key word.  If something is a property it is a property
of something - there is always an x2, even if it is filled by zohe. 

> Beauty is supposed to be indepednent of the things that are beautiful.
> LIkewise "Faith, Hope, Chaarity.  WE have no trouble understanding these
> without case studies.  Why not Whiskeyfondnesss?

The possessor of beauty in general is all the possessors.

---
And