From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Fri Apr 20 00:51:11 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 20 Apr 2001 07:51:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 83539 invoked from network); 20 Apr 2001 07:51:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Apr 2001 07:51:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO b05.egroups.com) (10.1.2.184) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Apr 2001 07:51:10 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Received: from [10.1.4.73] by b05.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Apr 2001 07:51:10 -0000 Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 07:51:08 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: "not only" Message-ID: <9boppc+78dl@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <71.cacd461.2810a65d@aol.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2971 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 193.149.49.79 From: "A.W.T." X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 6715 --- In lojban@y..., pycyn@a... wrote: > In a message dated 4/19/2001 2:19:07 PM Central Daylight Time, > Ti@f... writes: > > > > I don't at all accept your tricky "*are* (pregnant)", which is false - hence > > all your further statements deducted. > > > > {lo'e fetsi cu ka'e pazvau} -> true > > {lo'e fetsi po'onai cu ka'e pazvau} -> true > > {lo'e fetsi noi se zdani la'o gy The Carmel of Sts Tereesa and Therese gy > > cu ka'e pazvau} -> true > > (I think, this doesn't claim that there are females there at all nor that > > they're pregnant) > > {lo'e fetsi noi se zdani la cys. ge'u po'onai cu ka'e pazvau} -> ????? > > (is only the typical female *living in the Carmel* innately capable to be > > pregnant?! Yet, using the {noi} here instead of {poi} maybe could save > > here - not too sure though.) > > > Are you sayiing that "Only females are pregnant" is false? That there is > (among humans) something not female yet pregnant? How is this tricky? No! My main point was/is that your (English) statement "are pregnant" is not correct and thus misleading. (I assume it's colloquial for {ka'e pazvau}. In German maybe: "Alle Frauen *werden* schwanger" {lo fetsi cu pazvau binxo} instead of {... ka'e pazvau binxo}. But I'll have to re-read your earlier statements - maybe got them in the wrong throat. But have to leave for now... > Your examples about typical females is beside the point: "only" isn't about > typicals but about real things. Yes, but this doen't change anything I said on your "tricky" (false!) English statement: {lo fetsi cu ka'e pazvau} > I assume you mean {po'o}, not {po'onai} throughout -- as obscure as {po'o} > is, {po'onai} is off the charts. Yes (you're right - was absent minded and didn't pay too much attention); {lo fetsi po'onai ka'e pazvau} could be true only, if {fetsi} referred only to human females (which infact it doesn't). > Note that the last couple of cases are not about typical specimens of females > at a particular site, but about typical specimens of females. That they are > at a particular site is added information, and quite probably false. Aside > from that false information, the last two are obviously true, since we have > established that typical females can be pregnant, presumably wherever they > are. If the last sentences are false, then, it is because there are no > typical females at the site indicated -- as seems likely, given the > peculiarities involved in becoming a Carmelite nun -- or, in the last case, > because it claims (as it seems to do) that the natural potential for > pregnancy occurs only at that one place -- and a bad choice of place it is > too. Again, yes - I should have used {poi}: {lo fetsi poi se zdani la kys. ge'u po'onai cu ka'e pazvau} -> true Not only those females living in the Carmel are innately capable of being/becoming pregnant (because all other females outside in the world also are). co'omi'e .aulun.