From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Wed Nov 29 15:40:49 1995 Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id PAA13407 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 1995 15:40:47 -0500 Message-Id: <199511292040.PAA13407@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 9D273DEF ; Wed, 29 Nov 1995 15:27:10 -0500 Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 15:25:39 -0500 Reply-To: Jorge Llambias Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: Fuzzy Fallacies X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR la lojbab cusku di'e > > ko'a condi fo mi > > Koha is deep/tall by standard me. > > > > ko'a condi fo leka ke'a zmadu lo mitre be li papimu > > Koha is deep/tall by standard being more than a length of 1.5m > > > > ko'a condi fo lo'e remna > > Koha is deep/tall by standard the average human. > > All. In the first you are comparing with yourself, I meant it in the sense "according to my impression". I take it that is not a valid use of the standard place? Does {ta xamgu do mi} mean "that is good for you compared to how good I am for you} or does it mean "that is good for you by my reckoning"? I think all the examples I've seen give the second interpretation. > in the second with 1.5M > and in the 3rd with the average human. The open question is whether > a anc require a tu'a, because elaborating requires the same kind of leka > phrase as the 2nd. That's not the only open question. It seems to me that standard places are used rather haphazardly. Jorge