From pycyn@aol.com Fri Sep 07 06:23:07 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 7 Sep 2001 13:23:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 68301 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2001 13:21:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Sep 2001 13:21:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d10.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.42) by mta2 with SMTP; 7 Sep 2001 13:21:38 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.8b.c286ca2 (3867) for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 09:21:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8b.c286ca2.28ca23db@aol.com> Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 09:21:31 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] A serious but ungeneralized new attempt on Q-kau [retractions] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_8b.c286ca2.28ca23db_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_8b.c286ca2.28ca23db_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Boy, I REALLY have to do this stuff at 3 am rather than 8pm! In a message dated 9/6/2001 7:58:08 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: > No, for two reasons. First of all, you need "poi ge jetnu gi du'u > da prami de" to be a restriction on da and on de, but it isn't. As > it stands, you're claiming that ko'a knows that everything loves > everything. IIRC, though, there is a way to get one relative clause to > modify two conjoined sumti, but I can't remember offhand how to do it. > > Second, and more seriously, it doesn't cover cases where da prami no de > Both points are right ({poi} is not conditional with {su'o} as it sorta is with {ro}) and "nobody" can, of course, be an answer in other than presupposition fights. I am still not sure that it enters directly into this case, however, since it does not seem to be in the answers to "Who loves whom?" -- at least directly (we can infer from the absence of a name in one category or the other, I suppose). roda rode zo'u ganai da prami de gige di du'u da prami de gi la pol djuno di I am not sure whether to patch for the "nobody" case --part1_8b.c286ca2.28ca23db_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Boy, I REALLY have to do this stuff at 3 am rather than 8pm!

In a message dated 9/6/2001 7:58:08 PM Central Daylight Time,
a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:


No, for two reasons. First of all, you need "poi ge jetnu gi du'u
da prami de" to be a restriction on da and on de, but it isn't. As
it stands, you're claiming that ko'a knows that everything loves
everything. IIRC, though, there is a way to get one relative clause to
modify two conjoined sumti, but I can't remember offhand how to do it.

Second, and more seriously, it doesn't cover cases where da prami no de
and no da prami de.

Both points are right ({poi} is not conditional with {su'o} as it sorta is
with {ro}) and "nobody" can, of course, be an answer in other than
presupposition fights.  I am still not sure that it enters directly into this
case, however, since it does not seem to be in the answers to "Who loves
whom?" -- at least directly (we can infer from the absence of a name in one
category or the other, I suppose).  

roda rode zo'u ganai da prami de gige di du'u da prami de gi la pol djuno di

I am not sure whether to patch for the "nobody" case

--part1_8b.c286ca2.28ca23db_boundary--