Return-Path: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@vms.dc.LSOFT.COM Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id SAA14059 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 1996 18:52:21 +0200 Message-Id: <199601161652.SAA14059@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi> Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id D9131894 ; Tue, 16 Jan 1996 17:52:21 +0100 Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 12:17:32 -0500 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: Re: SNU: ki'e doi skot. X-To: Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199601120908.EAA23328@locke.ccil.org> from "Goran Topic" at Jan 12, 96 01:59:53 am Content-Length: 847 Lines: 19 la goran. cusku di'e > If you > call {xrobau} another fu'ivla (albeit with intuitively grokked place > structure) instead of lujvo, all is OK. And it does not even violate any > rules. It is perfectly legal and in accordance with the prescription, > which can't really be said about xorvo. So, I don't see why you ask... > zo'onaizo'o Not at all. Anything in lujvo form, whether the apparent rafsi are in fact assigned to any gismu, cannot be a fu'ivla in the standard language. There is an American witticism, usually attributed to President Lincoln: "How many legs does a dog have, if you call its tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one." This may be called the Realist school of interpretive semantics. :-) -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban.