From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sat Feb 10 11:28:11 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 10 Feb 2001 19:27:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 93279 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2001 19:27:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Feb 2001 19:27:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta06-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.46) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Feb 2001 19:27:50 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.252.13.172]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010210192748.OOJV285.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 19:27:48 +0000 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] RE:su'u Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 19:26:53 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 5378 Xorxes: > la djan cusku di'e > > >We can if you > >like replace all talk of Socrates with talk of the Socratizer, where > >"x1 is a Socratizer" is a predicate that is (intensionally) true of > >Socrates and nobody else. But does this really change anything? > > If both views are equivalent it would have been much better > to have selmaho CMENE behave just like any BRIVLA. The language > would be much more parsimonious. It has always bothered me > that I can't just say {*mi xorxes} or {*mi tcidu le djan cukta}. I agree completely. But given that CMENE doesn't behave like BRIVLA, how can we approximate to {*mi xorxes} and {*mi tcidu le djan cukta}? {me la [cmene]} seems not to do the trick, for reasons raised earlier in the thread. --And.