From jjllambias@hotmail.com Tue Oct 30 15:54:17 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 30 Oct 2001 23:54:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 55963 invoked from network); 30 Oct 2001 23:54:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Oct 2001 23:54:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.62) by mta3 with SMTP; 30 Oct 2001 23:54:16 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 15:54:16 -0800 Received: from 200.41.247.34 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 23:54:16 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.34] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 23:54:16 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Oct 2001 23:54:16.0785 (UTC) FILETIME=[2F358C10:01C1619E] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la adam cusku di'e >la .and. cusku di'e > > > I gave the example as false statement, in contrast to {re da kanla > > lo'e remna}, which is true. > >Really? Which two things? Are they both a "lo'e kanla"? I assume that >the "archetypal" human (or whatever lo'e turns out to mean) must >have "archetypal" eyes. (He certainly can't have real eyes.) But his >two eyes can't be the same "archetypal" eye. Could his two eyes be re >lo'e kanla? {re lo'e kanla} doesn't make sense, there is only one {lo'e kanla}. The easy way out is to say {lo'e remna cu relyselkanla}. Otherwise I think you have to say: lo'e kanla reroi kanla lo'e remna The Eye eyes the Human twice. if we don't want to repeat {kanla}, we could go with: lo'e du reroi kanla lo'e remna and then maybe: zo'e reroi kanla lo'e remna Could {zo'e} be defined perhaps as {lo'e du}? mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp