From pycyn@aol.com Wed Aug 29 16:32:50 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 29 Aug 2001 23:32:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 51665 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2001 23:32:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Aug 2001 23:32:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r04.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.100) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 Aug 2001 23:32:49 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.136.d387f2 (3893) for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 19:32:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <136.d387f2.28bed59a@aol.com> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 19:32:42 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Another stab at a Record on ce'u To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_136.d387f2.28bed59a_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_136.d387f2.28bed59a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/29/2001 3:48:18 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: > x1 satisfies evaluator x2 in property (ka)/state x3 > > For starters there's something wrong if x3 can be a property *or* a > Not obviously: it may make a diffference whether he IS something or CAN DO something, for example. Or a {du'u} plus {le no'a}. Sounds right. --part1_136.d387f2.28bed59a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/29/2001 3:48:18 PM Central Daylight Time,
a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:


x1 satisfies evaluator x2 in property (ka)/state x3

For starters there's something wrong if x3 can be a property *or* a
state


Not obviously: it may make a diffference whether he IS something or CAN DO
something, for example.

<Second, if x1 has to be an argument within the x3, why is this
not just a sumti raising, such that the underlying satisfier is
the x3? If it is just a sumti raising, then what is called for is
not a ka plus ce'u but a nu plus leno'a:>

Or a {du'u} plus {le no'a}.  Sounds right.
--part1_136.d387f2.28bed59a_boundary--