From xod@sixgirls.org Tue Nov 13 16:37:01 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 14 Nov 2001 00:37:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 66149 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2001 00:37:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Nov 2001 00:37:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (216.27.131.50) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Nov 2001 00:37:00 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fAE0ax105372 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 19:36:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 19:36:58 -0500 (EST) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] Introduction, and zutse/se sutse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself X-Yahoo-Profile: throwing_back_the_apple On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > la pycyn cusku di'e > > >{ka'e} is glossed in terms of potentiality "is > >inherently capable of." > > The problem with this gloss is that it seems to be biased > towards the x1 of the relationship. {ka'e broda} is a > relationship. Does it mean that x1 is inherently capable of > entering the relationship, or does it mean that x1, x2, x3... > are each inherently capable of entering the relationship? Good point. Just a few days ago I wrote "ka'e broda da" and realized that this was counter to the typical use of Lojban. But ka'e works like pu, operating on the entire relationship. English users are accustomed to thinking of ka'e as "can", and importing the English intuitive word ordering. of "(noun) can (verb)". -- I hope they confuse the two and toss away the lit flare while holding the lit dynamite stick as a statue of Liberty Torch. That would make my day- for at least a 1/4 hour. -- Fernando