From araizen@newmail.net Wed Apr 03 14:27:55 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 3 Apr 2002 22:27:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 11838 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2002 22:27:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Apr 2002 22:27:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mxout1.netvision.net.il) (194.90.9.20) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Apr 2002 22:27:52 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer ([62.0.180.48]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GU00079RJQ9ZM@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 01:27:47 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 22:22:27 +0200 Subject: Re: [lojban] ce'u once again To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Message-id: <069101c1db67$22ca9220$e5b7003e@oemcomputer> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <89.15e8f22b.29db94bb@aol.com> From: Adam Raizen X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=3063669 X-Yahoo-Profile: araizen la pycyn. cusku di'e > > No it doesn't. 'zmadu' requires a unary property in the 3rd place. > > > Why? Why not say "is to the left of"? I'm not sure what you are suggesting should be replaced by 'is to the left of', but 'zmadu' compares the result of applying the x3 property to x1 with the result of applying it to x2 and claims that the former 'is more than' the latter. The best I can come up with for a binary property in x3 of 'zmadu' is that the binary property would specify the relationship between x1 and x2, maybe something like 'la fred. la djordj. zmadu le ka ce'u ralju le cecmu be ce'u' --> 'Fred is more than George in being the head of his community.' This might be a cute trick, but it's very different from the normal use of 'zmadu' and in any case isn't a way to interpret the sentence this discussion is based on. ('lenu la fred. bilma cu zmadu lenu la djordj. bilma kei leka ce'u rinka leka ce'u ruble') In that sentence, the second argument for the binary property isn't itself a sumti of the main bridi, and so at best it's very confusing. mu'o mi'e .adam.