From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Thu Nov 15 07:13:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 15 Nov 2001 15:13:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 60813 invoked from network); 15 Nov 2001 15:13:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Nov 2001 15:13:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Nov 2001 15:13:24 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Thu, 15 Nov 2001 14:49:38 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 15:25:41 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 15:25:23 +0000 To: lojban Subject: Re: ka'e (was: Re: [lojban] Introduction, and zutse/se sutse Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin >>> Invent Yourself 11/14/01 06:17pm >>> #On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, And Rosta wrote: #> >>> Invent Yourself 11/14/01 05:39pm >>> #> #On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, And Rosta wrote: #> #> >>> Invent Yourself 11/14/01 05:21pm >>> #> #> #On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, And Rosta wrote: #> #> #> 2. The "innately capable of" is open to the objection raised by Jo= rge -- #> #> #> that it wrongly privileges one sumti. #> #> # #> #> #Not so fast. Which sumti is wrongly privileged in "ka'e klama da"? #> #> #> #> The goer. I assume on the basis of canonical examples that it is the #> #> goer that is innately capable of going somewhere. #> # #> #.ienai .i le selkla po'o cu selsnu #> #> Not really. Ignoring the ka'e, your sentence says "you-know-what #> goes somewhere from you-know-where via you-know-where...". # #pe'i le drata tergismu cu selnibli jena selsnu I don't really see that within a single bridi any one sumti is any more selsnu than any other. It seems especially weird for "da" to be selsnu.=20 #> #.i ku'i le mulno ckini cu cumki #> #.i ko lanli "mi pu klama" .i le mulno ckini cu purci #> #> This is correct. ka'e should be similar, hence the objection to #> "innately capable". # #.ie .i pe'i na fancu zo pu (noi zo ka'e pagbu ke'a ku'o) le bridi I don't understand. "ka'e" is not a part of "pu", and what is not a function from "pu" to the bridi? --And.