From xod@sixgirls.org Wed Aug 29 14:15:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 29 Aug 2001 21:15:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 14511 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2001 21:02:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Aug 2001 21:02:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Aug 2001 21:02:51 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.6/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f7TL2pL10402 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 17:02:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 17:02:50 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Another stab at a Record on ce'u In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Nick Nicholas wrote: > For clarification, and because I tend to get caught in my own vocab: By > Free {ka}, I mean a {ka} clause which may well contain {ce'u}, but where > that {ce'u} is not necessarily filled in by any sumti in the bridi, or I am not sure this distinction is useful enough. > And I at least now think this is a quality, not a property I might open a new can by demanding an example of the difference between "quality" and "property". Or I could be Lojbanic and observe that clearly whatever difference there may be in English, in Lojban at least as far as ka is concerned, there isn't any. ----- "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