From jcowan@reutershealth.com Mon Nov 26 09:11:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jcowan@reutershealth.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 26 Nov 2001 17:11:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 57237 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2001 17:11:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Nov 2001 17:11:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.reutershealth.com) (204.243.9.36) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Nov 2001 17:11:40 -0000 Received: from reutershealth.com (IDENT:cowan@[10.65.117.21]) by mail.reutershealth.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA08283; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 12:12:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C027822.6050005@reutershealth.com> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 12:13:06 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.5) Gecko/20011012 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: And Rosta Cc: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] lo'e and NAhEBO References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: John Cowan X-Yahoo-Profile: john_w_cowan And Rosta wrote: > You're definitely wrong about that. I *think* (without checking refgram) > that {na'e bo le broda} = {lo na du be le broda}. Well, sort of, but na'e (with or without bo) always has some kind of implicit scale (which can be made explicit with a sumtcita). Thus when I say that Fido is a non-horse, I imply that he is some sort of animal, or perhaps a vehicle if I am thinking of horses as primarily transportation tools, or even perhaps a tractor. But if Fido is the concept "Osama bin Laden is in Afghanistan", I would find it disturbing to be told that la faidos. cu na'e xirma, since there is no plausible scale even remotely connecting one with the other. -- Not to perambulate || John Cowan the corridors || http://www.reutershealth.com during the hours of repose || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan in the boots of ascension. \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel