Re: [lojban] Re: "to pretend" or "to fake"

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Michael Turniansky
<mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>   A person, but since there is really no way in lojban to grab a
> concrete from an abstraction (except perhaps the vague la'e), I had to
> phrase it as the tu'a of x1 (the first argument of the kritcica) is
> the t1.

So you don't allow a person as the x1 of tcica, but you require a
person as the x1 of kritcica? I would expect a kritcica to be some
sort of tcica.

> Always wished there was an inverse of tu'a.

"lo jai me"?

> Feel free to
> rewrite in a clearer way.  (I've also always wanted an inverse of
> nu/ka, i.e. a way to grab a bridi back from an abstraction, so we can
> say things like "I like going to the movies in the afternoon, but
> Mikey likes to in the morning" without jumping through hoops ((calling
> my idea x'ua for a second) "mi nelci lo nu viska lo skina ca lo
> lecydo'i .iku'i la maikis nelci lo nu xu'a lo se go'i ca lo cerni")
> Sure, we could use the vague "co'e" but it's ...vague.

But what if the "abstraction" was at the next level down:

 mi mutce lo ka nelci lo nu viska lo skina ca lo lecydo'i .i ku'i la
maikis cu nelci lo nu ??? ca lo cerni

The problem with back counting pro-things is that they don't work.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.