From pycyn@aol.com Sat Feb 16 06:53:52 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 16 Feb 2002 14:53:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 56023 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2002 14:53:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Feb 2002 14:53:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d10.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.42) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Feb 2002 14:53:51 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.16c.8f0d896 (4530) for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 09:53:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <16c.8f0d896.299fcc77@aol.com> Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 09:53:43 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Non-logical AND in Tanru? To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_16c.8f0d896.299fcc77_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 13316 --part1_16c.8f0d896.299fcc77_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/15/2002 11:03:43 PM Central Standard Time, thanatos@dim.com writes: > Well, if {no da broda} is true, what meaning could {mi broda klama} > possibly have? If there weren't any real, imagined, or theoretical > things that were broda, what meaning would broda have? And then what of > {mi broda klama}? > I confess I haven't really thought this through (as I said, this just hasn't been an issue generally -- thanks for raising it). I think it may depend on the nature of {broda} and the relation to {klama}. If {broda} is adverbial, then the thing that is {broda} is probably something like {le nu klama}, and so on. When I wrote that before, I think I had such cases in mind. But the ones I was mainly focusing on were ones like {cmalu xanto} where the object that is the {cmalu} cannot be isolated from the {xanto}, without problems; that is, the broda does have its places filled implicitly but not in isolation. I took the isolation claim to be the likely next step in your reasoning and wanted to stop it beforehand. --part1_16c.8f0d896.299fcc77_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/15/2002 11:03:43 PM Central Standard Time, thanatos@dim.com writes:


Well, if {no da broda} is true, what meaning could {mi broda klama}
possibly have?  If there weren't any real, imagined, or theoretical
things that were broda, what meaning would broda have?  And then what of
{mi broda klama}?


I confess I haven't really thought this through (as I said, this just hasn't been an issue generally -- thanks for raising it).  I think it may depend on the nature of {broda} and the relation to {klama}.  If {broda} is adverbial, then the thing that is {broda} is probably something like {le nu klama}, and so on.  When I wrote that before, I think I had such cases in mind.  But the ones I was mainly focusing on were ones like {cmalu xanto} where the object that is the {cmalu} cannot be isolated from the {xanto}, without problems; that is, the broda does have its places filled implicitly but not in isolation.  I took the isolation claim to be the likely next step in your reasoning and wanted to stop it beforehand. --part1_16c.8f0d896.299fcc77_boundary--