From cowan Tue Jan 16 12:17:32 1996 Subject: Re: SNU: ki'e doi skot. From: John Cowan To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 12:17:32 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199601120908.EAA23328@locke.ccil.org> from "Goran Topic" at Jan 12, 96 01:59:53 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 824 Message-ID: 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.