Re: [lojban] le ga'irfanta

[pycyn@aol.com]

In a message dated 00-05-24 14:59:09 EDT, you write:

<< rom: jjllambias@hotmail.com (Jorge Llambias)
 To:    lojban@egroups.com
 
 
 la pycyn cusku di'e
 
 >  <<
 >  I know the book says
 >  otherwise, but {pisu'o} just doesn't make sense to me, for
 >  the same reason that {ro} has to be the default for {le}. >>
 >I'm torn, too.  On the other hand, we both were advocating on another 
 >thread
 >that the way to deal with dogs biting men was shift over to <lei> at both
 >places, so we did not have to have all dogs biting all men  to make the
 >ordinary case work right.
 
 Yes, but I don't see a contradiction. When the dogs as one
 whole bite the men as one whole there is no need for each dog
 to bite each man. When the books as one whole are published,
 there is a need for each book to be published, especially
 if they are completely published. For something to bite, only
 one mouth is needed. What is needed for something to be in print?
 Is it enough that one part of it be in print? This is about the
 meaning of the predicate word, but the referent argument is in
 both cases the whole mass. >>

O Drat!  Is it time for the semiannual go'round about the relation between 
the properties of masses and the properties of the members of the underlying 
classes?  I haven't written the last one up yet!
Well, I won't start it.  I find your argument convincing until I try to 
formulate the general principle and then it does not seem to work.  So, I'll 
stick with "le or piro lei would have been safer."