From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Sat Feb 3 00:01:01 1996 Received: from wnt.dc.lsoft.com (wnt.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.7]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id AAA27703 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 1996 00:00:22 -0500 Message-Id: <199602030500.AAA27703@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by wnt.dc.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.0a) with SMTP id 06CD3060 ; Fri, 2 Feb 1996 23:27:32 -0500 Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 18:45:09 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: brain fart metaphor X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 586 skot: > This seems to be the essence of Don's argument. A {besna} has no {te > kafke}, so a {besna kafke} can't be a "brain fart" because a brain fart > isn't a kind of {kafke}. I don't think {broda brode} entails {brode}. So technically, {besna kafke} is legit. Furthermore, even if you used just {kafke}, that too is okay; you'd be claiming it was a cough/fart, but then that's metaphor. As for whether you should use {pea}, there are no circumstances in which you should use {pea}, but this is a circumstance where it would be acceptable to do so. coo, mie And