On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Pierre Abbat
<phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
On Friday 09 December 2011 07:40:50 Michael Turniansky wrote:
> I guess the first question we need to ask is "should lojban even have
> words that have more than one scope?" Assuming the answer is yes, then
> since the structure is the same regardless of the exact definition, I would
> just put it once, and then the three definitions. Incidentally, thatnks
> for teaching me about "Crown groups". I had never heard of that before.
So how would you word the definition?
Oh, probably something like:
x1 se kamjybo'u x2 fi'o se steci la'e di'e
.itu'e ra'u lo go'i cu se kerfa fi da gi'e pu'i seldja loi ladru be lo mamta be vo'a
.ibo ma'i lo za'e kunji'eske lo go'i cu se xejbo'u lo pamei gi'e se ke nerkerlo bongu lo cimei ku pi'u lo kerlo
.ibo ma'i lo jicyjutsi'o lo go'i cu seldze lo traji lampru dzena be loi remna ku jo'u loi kanguru ku jo'u lo ornitorinku tu'u
> (But then, back when I learned biology there were only two groups of
> animals: "Things you can eat" and "Things that will eat you".)
That dichotomy is easily disproved: the piranha is in both categories, and
brachiopods are in neither. And of course, the human cannot be in only one
category.
That's silly! Brachipods were extinct, piranha hadn't been discovered, and Golruk was explaining that last point when Snorg ate him.
--gejyspa
Pierre
--
li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du
li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci