From ragnarok@pobox.com Mon May 31 13:54:04 2004
Return-Path: <ragnarok@pobox.com>
X-Sender: ragnarok@pobox.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 748 invoked from network); 31 May 2004 20:54:02 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167)
  by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 31 May 2004 20:54:02 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mailserv1.intrex.net) (209.42.192.236)
  by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 31 May 2004 20:54:02 -0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailserv1.intrex.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C9EC650
	for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Mon, 31 May 2004 16:54:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from craig (client212-89.dsl.intrex.net [209.42.212.89])
	by mailserv1.intrex.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 8D7FEC5A8
	for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Mon, 31 May 2004 16:53:59 -0400 (EDT)
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 16:55:08 -0400
Message-ID: <LPBBLNNHBOGBGAINBIEFCENODPAA.ragnarok@pobox.com>
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
In-Reply-To: <40BB9466.6010105@thestonecutters.net>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
X-Virus-Scanned: by viruswatch at intrex.net
X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 209.42.192.236
From: "Craig" <ragnarok@pobox.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: Learning Lojban
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382
X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 22482

>>>> Lojban does not have nouns, verbs etc., and I am
>>>>convinced that our endless debates about Lojban articles are partly
>>>>caused by the fact that we still think of them as articles.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Sounds right. I think the best way to think of {lo} is as
>>>a selbri-to-sumti converter, without any additional baggage.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>To someone who doesn't know Lojban, "selbri" and "sumti" are semantic
zeros.
>>The closest terms in English, I think, are "verb phrase" and "noun
phrase",
>>
>>

>A closer analogy might be Function and Arguments.

Closer, yess, but less good when the goal is to explain it from the
standpoint of natural language grammar.

 - mi'e .kreig.daniyl.

ragnarok@pobox.com
teucer@bnomic.org