From pycyn@aol.com Thu Sep 06 06:47:49 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 6 Sep 2001 13:47:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 85993 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2001 13:44:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Sep 2001 13:44:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r10.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.106) by mta3 with SMTP; 6 Sep 2001 13:44:37 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.64.12d1075c (657) for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 09:44:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <64.12d1075c.28c8d7bd@aol.com> Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 09:44:29 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] the set of answers To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_64.12d1075c.28c8d7bd_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_64.12d1075c.28c8d7bd_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/5/2001 6:17:37 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > >So, if you accept > >{la dubias frica la tclsys lo ka makau mamte ce'u} or specifically {la > >dubias > >frica la tclsys le ka la babras mamte ce'u} then you have to accept {la > >dubias frica la tclsys le mamte be ce'u} on the same principle. > > I don't think that follows. I think {lo te frica} is a property, > not a person. > I couldn't agree more, which why I object to your objection: {le mamte be ce'u} IS a property (more accurately a function, but the general point is the same.) --part1_64.12d1075c.28c8d7bd_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/5/2001 6:17:37 PM Central Daylight Time,
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


>So, if you accept
>{la dubias frica la tclsys lo ka makau mamte ce'u} or specifically {la
>dubias
>frica la tclsys le ka la babras mamte ce'u} then you have to accept {la
>dubias frica la tclsys le mamte be ce'u} on the same principle.

I don't think that follows. I think {lo te frica} is a property,
not a person.


I couldn't agree more, which why I object to your objection: {le mamte be
ce'u} IS a property (more accurately a function, but the general point is the
same.) --part1_64.12d1075c.28c8d7bd_boundary--