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 QAA06490 for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 16:03:36 -0500
Message-Id: <199511152103.QAA06490@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 0490D412 ; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 16:36:46 -0400
Date:         Wed, 15 Nov 1995 20:34:12 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: pointing
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Nov 15 16:03:38 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU

Pointing is, I believe, universal, so Peter is surely quite
right that we need a word for it. But, as far as I am aware,
there are no established grounds for arguing that some
concept should be expressible by gismu rather than by lujvo.
Maybe there should be such grounds, but at any rate, for
the time being I suppose the argument must proceed by showing
what's wrong with candidate lujvo.

> I think part of the problem is that you are misinterpretting the meaning
> of "point" in English.  From a practical standpoint, it means "indicate"
> or "draw attention to".

{jundi/jarco zei troci} or {troci zei jundi/jarco}?

But I have nothing against a gismu for "point to", though I would prefer
it to be inceived by discarding an obsolete gismu.

---
And