From cowan Mon Jan 29 16:10:44 1996
Subject: Re: sentient lizards (comment on jvoplace.txt)
From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 16:10:44 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <199601292101.QAA07291@locke.ccil.org> from "Steven M. Belknap" at Jan 29, 96 11:42:47 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length:  1082
Message-ID: <5xAtIO8D33H.A.Ra.h10kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>


> John's document may be between changes here:
> 
> >Which brings us to
> >
> >1.3)    mi lekmau do lo mitre be li pimu
> >        I cold-exceed you by-amount-what-is measured-in-meters-as 0.5
> 
> 
> Shouldn't this be
> 
> mi lekmau do lo kelvo be li pimu
> 
> (Presumably mi and do refer here to sentient lizards, or other
> poikilothermic persons.)

Ouch!  Obviously a mixture of different versions here.  1.1 is canonical, 1.2 is
almost right, and 1.3 is totally bogus.

(But you don't need to be poikilothermic to differ in temperature by five
kelvins: one of you is hypothermic, that's all.)

> Another possibility would be to build on the
> previous examples given earlier in the paper:
> 
> le bisli ku lekmau le djacu zohe lo kelvo be li mu

Actually it's "le bisli cu lekmanu le djacu le ni kelvi li mu".

> Query: Why use cu, isn't it more instructive to use le...ku pairs?

Using "cu" is a stylistic choice that's compatible with most of our
intermediate materials.

-- 
John Cowan					cowan@ccil.org
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.