From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Fri Sep 14 18:08:14 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 15 Sep 2001 01:08:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 76405 invoked from network); 15 Sep 2001 00:34:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Sep 2001 00:34:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta02-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.42) by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Sep 2001 00:34:25 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.84.163]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010915003423.NOML29790.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sat, 15 Sep 2001 01:34:23 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] A revised ce'u proposal involving si'o (fwd) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 01:33:38 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Nick: > lenu mi tavla do cu dicra lenu do gunka kei leka ce'u xi pa toljundyri'a > do ce'u xi re [...] > (And before anyone starts rolling their eyes about the subscripts, how > else would you make sure the two ce'u are not coreferential?) [I think I may have skimmed a message that answered this, but on re-searching recent messages I can't find it, so maybe I imagined the answer when I first skimmed Nick's message...] Separate ce'u have to be independent variables. {ce'u prami ce'u} cannot mean "self-love" -- that would be {ce'u prami loi nei}. But at the same time, {ko'a prami loi nei} is an instance of {ce'u xi pa prami ce'u xi re}, and if you want to define the property of loving something other than oneself, then this would have to be {ce'u prami lo na nei no'u ce'u} or somesuch. --And.