Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 15:06:29 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712122006.PAA14991@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: category errors in sumti X-To: a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 781 X-From-Space-Date: Fri Dec 12 15:06:58 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU >Easy. I could easily create a lujvo or fu`ivla to do the job, >but I don't need to: {nanmu} and {ninmu} immediately spring >to mind. x1 of nanmu must be male. In order to be TRUE, yes. In order to make sense, not necessarily. The question was whether it was possible for a selbri to have such a restricted category of sumti. It is possible to do so, but not all propositions are true. >> On the other hand there are sumti places that would make no SENSE if an >> abstraction were used instead of a concrete, and vice versa. >--More-- > >I'm glad to see this obvious fact has finally dawned on you. It was never a mystery. However, it is my intent to not decide that a given usage makes no sense until I run across it in actual usage and can make no sense out of it. lojbab