On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 7:27 AM, tijlan
<jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not trying to amend {binxo}, just to clarify its implications.
The Lojban grammar treats properties differently from non-abstract
objects. We cannot conventionally say {lo bisli} and imply that it's
{lo ka bisli}. If we decided that binxo2 be "an acquired property" to
be attributed to binxo1, that would be a new definition with a
mandatory NU, and currently valid expressions like {lo djacu cu binxo
lo bisli} would no longer be grammatical.
Er, no; the grammar has no idea about what types of things different sumti are. You can put properties and concrete sumti in the same places in any selbri grammatically. What you're talking about is a sort of low level semantics that is beneath most other semantics, namely what sorts of things can do what, that is to say {ka'e} statements.
mu'o mi'e latros