Return-Path: <@segate.sunet.se:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from segate.sunet.se by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0soHHg-0000ZKC; Fri, 1 Sep 95 00:36 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from segate.sunet.se by segate.sunet.se (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id 0E7C8F22 ; Thu, 31 Aug 1995 23:36:27 +0200 Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 22:35:05 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: Names X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: (Your message of Thu, 31 Aug 95 14:45:19 EDT.) <199508311932.UAA28009@listserv.rl.ac.uk> Content-Length: 511 Lines: 15 > I just realized that there is a much better way of creating > a predicate out of a name than using {me} or {du}. > {me} is not so good because it means "pertains to", > {du} doesn't really create a predicate, it just identifies > two sumti, which is a different thing. > But there is a way to make a real predicate out of a name, > using {zei}: > mi cu zei xorxes I hope this works - I agree {me} & {du} are no good. Can one say {lo cu zei xorxes} or {lo zei xorxes}? If so, then neat idea! --- And