[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla


On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 5:58 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
  In the present case, xorxes, while moving toward including cmevla among brivla, takes the fact that LA and LE take the identically specified sumti-tails to infer that they treat them the same way, so the name applies to the first argument just as the description does (though he admits that the application may not be as direct in the LA as in the case of LE -- except, of course, when the sumti-tail is a cmevla, when it is direct and veridical and all those good things. 

That doesn't seem to fit my opinion at all. I agree with selpa'i, tsani, and CLL on this.

 
Lojbab, keeping the two separate, still thinks that LA treats sumti-tails just like LE does; in this case, by including all the implicit {zo'e} (though he admits tsani might not want to recognize that as his name nor anyone use it of him).  Finally, selpa'i (having been told collectively by xorxes and Lojbab that he is someone's beloved, like it or not)

Huh? I don't have any reason to doubt he is someone's beloved, but I would never infer that from his name.
 

maintains that LA in fact treats sumti-tails differently from the way LE does, name taking them as mere words without any necessary connection to their normal meaning or grammar. 

And that's the only sensible position, and also the official one as presented in CLL. The position you attribute to Lojbab is close to incomprehensible to me.

 mu'o mi'e xorxes

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