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 UAA13690 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 1996 20:48:44 +0200 Message-Id: <199602021848.UAA13690@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi> Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id EC7E571E ; Fri, 2 Feb 1996 19:48:44 +0100 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: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 568 Lines: 14 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