Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (psuvm.psu.edu [128.118.56.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with SMTP id VAA07342 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 1995 21:02:02 -0400 Message-Id: <199509010102.VAA07342@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2133; Thu, 31 Aug 95 20:41:08 EDT Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7638; Thu, 31 Aug 1995 17:36:43 -0400 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: John Cowan In-Reply-To: (Your message of Thu, 31 Aug 95 14:45:19 EDT.) <199508311932.UAA28009@listserv.rl.ac.uk> Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Thu Aug 31 21:02:13 1995 X-From-Space-Address: <@PSUVM.PSU.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> > 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