Could this be it? (was: I like chocolate)

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la and cusku di'e

> Something like {ta ckaji zei pixra tu'o du'u ce'u
> -diskette}, with {ckaji zei pixra} defined as "has visual aspects
> of property x2". This is much more like the case you've been
> talking about, but I am yet to be persuaded that it calls for
> {lo'e}.

Well, I wouldn't mind saying that, using {kairpixra} defined as
above, {ta pixra lo'e cukcma} means {ta kairpixra tu'o du'u
ce'u cukcma}. But, since {kairpixra} is not well defined in
terms of {pixra}, this doesn't really help to define {lo'e}.

But wait, we can at least define {pixra} in terms of {kairpixra}
as:

{ko'a pixra ko'e} <=> {ko'a kairpixra tu'o du'u ce'u du ko'e}

Then we have:

{ko'a pixra lo broda} =
{lo broda zo'u ko'a kairpixra tu'o du'u ce'u du by}

{ko'a pixra lo'e broda} =
{ko'a kairpixra tu'o du'u lo broda zo'u ce'u du by}

Now we can do the same for {viska}: We introduce a new predicate
{kairviska} that means "x1 sees something that exhibits property
x2". Then we have that {ko'a viska ko'e} is defined as
{ko'a kairviska tu'o du'u ce'u du ko'e}.

Then:

{ko'a viska lo broda} =
{lo broda zo'u ko'a kairviska tu'o du'u ce'u du by}

{ko'a viska lo'e broda} =
{ko'a kairviska tu'o du'u lo broda zo'u ce'u du by}

Can this be so simple and still be right, or am I forgetting
something?

What happens with the lion?

{kairselxabju} = x1 is inhabited by things with property x2"

{lo'e cinfo cu xabju le friko} =
{le friko cu se kairselxabju tu'o lo cinfo zo'u ce'u du cy}

So, if we understand the kair- predicates, we understand {lo'e}.

({sisku} was turned by force into what would have been {kairsisku},
but hopefully usage will bring it back to sanity.)

Can it really be so simple?

mu'o mi'e xorxes



_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com