From jcowan@reutershealth.com Sat Aug 25 21:52:05 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jcowan@reutershealth.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 26 Aug 2001 04:52:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 89332 invoked from network); 26 Aug 2001 04:52:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Aug 2001 04:52:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.reutershealth.com) (204.243.9.36) by mta2 with SMTP; 26 Aug 2001 04:52:04 -0000 Received: from localhost (jcowan@localhost) by mail.reutershealth.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA21621; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 00:53:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 00:53:48 -0400 (EDT) To: Nick Nicholas Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: mine, thine, hisn, hern, itsn ourn, yourn and theirn (was[lojban] si'o) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Nick Nicholas wrote: > My beef isn't that you're using sumti as ordinals --- though I think it a > barbarism. My beef is that, if you advocate {memimoi} as a generic > expression for "mine", you must dispense with any notion of ordering, > because "yours" vs. "mine" in general doesn't have a sense of ordering (as > in fact you have.) I mean, when the Duchess takes Alice's hand, and she > takes {le me la alis. moi}, {me la alis moi befi ma poi se porsi?} > > Like I say, if you use {zu'i pe mi}, you'll be understood immediately, you > won't leave metaphysical questions dangling, and you can go about your > business actually telling a story. Alternatively "me mi co'e", which is BTW the story with "old me". TLI uses "mea" for old "me", and defines "me" the same way we do (at Randall Holmes's recommendation). But we both agree that "me" works fine as a seltau in its old meaning. So we make it a seltau of a tanru whose tertau is "co'e": TLI Loglan has no "co'e". -- John Cowan, klugeur