From sentto-44114-2838-959219804-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Thu May 25 01:56:04 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 20656 invoked from network); 25 May 2000 01:55:35 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 25 May 2000 01:55:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 1781 invoked by uid 40001); 25 May 2000 01:56:48 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 1778 invoked from network); 25 May 2000 01:56:47 -0000 Received: from hp.egroups.com (208.50.144.93) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 25 May 2000 01:56:47 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2838-959219804-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.38] by hp.egroups.com with NNFMP; 25 May 2000 01:56:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 25235 invoked from network); 25 May 2000 01:56:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 25 May 2000 01:56:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo19.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.9) by mta3 with SMTP; 25 May 2000 01:56:43 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.9.) id a.dd.4c8f742 (4558) for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 21:56:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: To: lojban@egroups.com X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41 From: pycyn@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@egroups.com; contact lojban-owner@egroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@egroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 21:56:34 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] le ga'irfanta Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 00-05-24 14:59:09 EDT, you write: << rom: jjllambias@hotmail.com (Jorge Llambias) To: lojban@egroups.com la pycyn cusku di'e > << > I know the book says > otherwise, but {pisu'o} just doesn't make sense to me, for > the same reason that {ro} has to be the default for {le}. >> >I'm torn, too. On the other hand, we both were advocating on another >thread >that the way to deal with dogs biting men was shift over to at both >places, so we did not have to have all dogs biting all men to make the >ordinary case work right. Yes, but I don't see a contradiction. When the dogs as one whole bite the men as one whole there is no need for each dog to bite each man. When the books as one whole are published, there is a need for each book to be published, especially if they are completely published. For something to bite, only one mouth is needed. What is needed for something to be in print? Is it enough that one part of it be in print? This is about the meaning of the predicate word, but the referent argument is in both cases the whole mass. >> O Drat! Is it time for the semiannual go'round about the relation between the properties of masses and the properties of the members of the underlying classes? I haven't written the last one up yet! Well, I won't start it. I find your argument convincing until I try to formulate the general principle and then it does not seem to work. So, I'll stick with "le or piro lei would have been safer." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Best friends, most artistic, class clown Find 'em here: http://click.egroups.com/1/4054/3/_/17627/_/959219804/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com