From lojban@solipsys.co.uk Fri Oct 22 06:34:12 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban@solipsys.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 72455 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2004 13:34:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 Oct 2004 13:34:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n15a.bulk.scd.yahoo.com) (66.94.237.32) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Oct 2004 13:34:11 -0000 Received: from [66.218.66.58] by n15.bulk.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Oct 2004 13:34:07 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.184] by mailer7.bulk.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Oct 2004 13:34:07 -0000 Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:34:04 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 577 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-compose X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 66.94.237.32 From: "riderofgiraffes" X-Originating-IP: 83.104.25.49 Subject: Help in examples ... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=195115829 X-Yahoo-Profile: riderofgiraffes X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 23238 I've been trying to explain to someone why it is when discussing lojban that "standard" linguistic terms such as "noun", "complex noun phrase" and "verb", etc., don't suffice. I've pointed out that the clarity and unity provided by a single concept of "predicate with arguments" makes it simpler, and that introducing "noun", "verb", etc. simply makes the situation more complex, but it doesn't work with her mindset. Please can someone provide me with a few examples where a sumti cannot be passed of as "just a complex sort of noun"? Thanks.