From pycyn@aol.com Mon Oct 01 12:51:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 1 Oct 2001 19:50:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 13689 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2001 19:50:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.221 with QMQP; 1 Oct 2001 19:50:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r07.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.103) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Oct 2001 19:51:57 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.16d.1bc5138 (3926) for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:51:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <16d.1bc5138.28ea234f@aol.com> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:51:43 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_16d.1bc5138.28ea234f_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_16d.1bc5138.28ea234f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/1/2001 12:29:45 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > But something _is_ thrown out! We could no longer > use {le ka le mamta be ce'u cu melbi} for "the property > of having a beautiful mother". That's the main reason I > don't want to take {le mamta be ce'u} as a function. > Well, no one has used it yet, so it can't exactly be thrown out, not yet being in. But moe to the point, we have a perfectly good way of saying it, so it is not lost -- and we gain a new thing we did not have before. Now, this is a genuine problem, since I don't see how to get {ce'u goi cy zo'u} in with {le}, either before or after, unless I mess a bit with relative clauses, which look suspicious. Hmmmm --part1_16d.1bc5138.28ea234f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/1/2001 12:29:45 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


But something _is_ thrown out! We could no longer
use {le ka le mamta be ce'u cu melbi} for "the property
of having a beautiful mother". That's the main reason I
don't want to take {le mamta be ce'u} as a function.


Well, no one has used it yet, so it can't exactly be thrown out, not yet being in.  But moe to the point, we have a perfectly good way of saying it, so it is not lost -- and we gain a new thing we did not have before.  

<There's also the less important matter, but still significant,
that while you get ^xf(x), there's no equivalent way of
getting ^xf(g(x)).

It just wouldn't fit with the rest of the language if ce'u
had no prenex to hang from, and {le} does not provide one.>

Now, this is a genuine problem, since I don't see how to get {ce'u goi cy zo'u} in with {le}, either before or after, unless I mess a bit with relative clauses, which look suspicious.  Hmmmm

--part1_16d.1bc5138.28ea234f_boundary--