Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 12:35:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711111735.MAA26856@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: Problems with Abstraction X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: O X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 751 X-From-Space-Date: Tue Nov 11 12:36:04 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU John: > la .and. cusku di'e > > [much correct Lojbanery snipped] > > > It's like "All that > > glitters is not gold", which is fine for many many English > > speakers though not for me (I wd have to say "Not all that > > glitters is gold"). > > Really? I'm, as Colin Fine says, gobsmacked. There are > people who can say "All that flows is not water", outside > poetry? Definitely. I hear it quite often & it causes a double-take. I've also heard this observation from James Higginbotham, the formal semanticist. Indeed, I'm surprised that you're surprised: I thought that it was the widespread existence of "All that flows is not water" speakers, filtered via Horn's book, that was in large part responsible for the analogous Lojban rule. --And