From sentto-44114-2925-960056088-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Sat Jun 03 18:12:57 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 2766 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2000 18:12:56 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 3 Jun 2000 18:12:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 17702 invoked by uid 40001); 3 Jun 2000 18:14:54 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 17699 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2000 18:14:54 -0000 Received: from mq.egroups.com (207.138.41.138) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 3 Jun 2000 18:14:54 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2925-960056088-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.36] by mq.egroups.com with NNFMP; 03 Jun 2000 18:14:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 22162 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2000 18:14:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Jun 2000 18:14:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.20) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Jun 2000 18:14:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 95782 invoked by uid 0); 3 Jun 2000 18:14:47 -0000 Message-ID: <20000603181447.95781.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.42.154.52 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 03 Jun 2000 11:14:47 PDT X-Originating-IP: [200.42.154.52] To: lojban@egroups.com From: "Jorge Llambias" 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: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 11:14:47 PDT Subject: Re: [lojban] First steps with 'being'... Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit la aulun cusku di'e >Is this correct? >mi klama zo'e ma .i mi mo .i mi klama ma >And what's about this: >ma te klama zo'e mi .i mi mo .i ma se klama mi They are grammatical, but I think they might not yet mean what you want. I suppose the metaphor of existence as a voyage is fairly universal, but I think that we are not yet at the point in Lojban where we can take even that kind of metaphor for granted. >Are there (still) other ways to express these old questions of >man(kind)? Maybe: {i ma mi krasi i ma mi fanmo} {mi mo} doesn't involve metaphors, but it could be too vague. You can give as profound or as shallow an answer as you like. >What's about the other way round with the second phrase? mo mi or: mo >cu mi (I'm all other than confident, though). {mo mi} is fine, {mo} is still the selbri and {mi} a sumti. The other is wrong, because cu can only come before a selbri. >Or: ma mi This is ok, but it has no selbri. I would interpret it as {ma mi co'e}, where the selbri in question is given by context. >In "mi mo", mo is representing a whole unknown selbri (with all its >unknown places). How can this being narrowed in to a more >specific question? Maybe with a tanru? {mi zasti mo} or {mi mo zasti} >In "do na mi" or "do na'e mi", mi is a whole selbri, aren't it? >(being-I); No, {mi} is always a sumti. Any sumti can be made into a selbri with {me}: {do na me mi} >are there any possible sumti of mi then? {me } only has one place, it means "x1 is one of the referents of ". co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Best friends, most artistic, class clown Find 'em here: http://click.egroups.com/1/4054/3/_/17627/_/960056078/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com