From xod@sixgirls.org Wed Aug 29 17:18:09 2001
Return-Path: <xod@reva.sixgirls.org>
X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 30 Aug 2001 00:18:09 -0000
Received: (qmail 30615 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2001 00:14:04 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26)
  by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Aug 2001 00:14:04 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13)
  by mta1 with SMTP; 30 Aug 2001 00:14:04 -0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
  by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.6/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f7U0E3R11677
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 20:14:03 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 20:14:03 -0400 (EDT)
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: li'i (was: Another stab at a Record on ce'u
In-Reply-To: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMOEEFEKAA.a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.33.0108292012330.11624-100000@reva.sixgirls.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
From: Invent Yourself <xod@sixgirls.org>

On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, And Rosta wrote:

> Xod:
> > On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, And Rosta wrote:
> >
> > > > i. ce'u makes sense in li'i as well as du'u and ka.
> > >
> > > Actually, I don't think so. Does "li'i da -rain" [bugger. tip of the
> > > tongue. carmi?cevni? no] (= experience of it raining) make sense. I
> > > think it does. So I think "experience of having legs" is NOT
> > > "li'i ce'u se tuple" but rather "li'i le se NO'AU se tuple", where
> > > NO'AU = next outer phrase (regardless of whether it is a bridi) = a
> > > sibling of NO'A.
> >
> > li'i ce'u klama
> > experience of going
> >
> > li'i ce'u xelklama
> > experience of being a vehicle
> >
> > etc.
>
> But what sort of thing is ce'u in this construction. It seems nothing
> more than a variable bound to x2 of li'i. That's not at all what ce'u
> in ka or si'o or du'u is. So I'd change your examples to:


What is the big difference you see between si'o2 and li'i2?




-----
"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



