From araizen@newmail.net Sat Sep 01 17:44:09 2001 Return-Path: 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: References: 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" 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.