From araizen@newmail.net Sat Sep 01 17:44:09 2001
Return-Path: <araizen@newmail.net>
X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 2 Sep 2001 00:44:09 -0000
Received: (qmail 51310 invoked from network); 2 Sep 2001 00:44:09 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142)
  by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 2 Sep 2001 00:44:09 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO out.newmail.net) (212.150.54.158)
  by mta3 with SMTP; 2 Sep 2001 00:44:08 -0000
Received: from oemcomputer ([62.0.182.116]) by out.newmail.net ; Sun, 02 Sep 2001 03:45:09 +0200
Message-ID: <01a601c13350$eb9511e0$74b6003e@oemcomputer>
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
References: <F29Hi0SYNIPukg3nOpj00010fee@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: lo'e (was: Re: [lojban] ce'u
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 03:05:06 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
From: "Adam Raizen" <araizen@newmail.net>

la .xorxes. cusku di'e

> >Now, you tell me that lo'e gerku is the intension. To me, then,
that
> >would be "tu'o ka ce'u zo'e gerku" or "tu'o ka ce'u ce'u gerku".
>
> Wow, I think I'm having an epiphany. It's definitely not the latter,
> because {lo'e gerku} clearly selects the x1 of gerku. But the
former,
> yes, I think I'm starting to like it. Let's see how it would work:

But doesn't this cause other problems? Don't we still want to be able
to say "lo'e cinfo cu xabju le fi'ortu'a", which won't work here since
properties don't inhabit anything. (Unless you don't want to be able
to say that.)

mu'o mi'e .adam.