From xod@sixgirls.org Thu Aug 23 17:05:17 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 24 Aug 2001 00:05:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 46013 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2001 00:03:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Aug 2001 00:03:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta2 with SMTP; 24 Aug 2001 00:03:43 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f7O03ga21202 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:03:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:03:42 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] ce'u In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > la and cusku di'e > > >I must say though, that given the actual usage of nu, which so > >often seems to me to be wrong, your story reflects actual usage. > >I just think that neither your story nor much usage makes much > >sense. > > I think you are right that nu is used wrong, but I don't think > the alternative is du'u in those cases. The problem, I think, is > as usual the quantifiers. {le nu broda} should refer to an event > in real space-time to the same extent that {le gerku} does. > {lo'e nu broda} is what we should use when referring to events > that don't ca'a fasnu. That's not what "typical" means in English. Perhaps you were looking for da'i. ----- "It is not enough that an article is new and useful. The Constitution never sanctioned the patenting of gadgets. [...] It was never the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures." -- Supreme Court Justice Douglas, 1950