From rob@twcny.rr.com Sat Dec 29 17:24:20 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 30 Dec 2001 01:24:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 62431 invoked from network); 30 Dec 2001 01:24:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Dec 2001 01:24:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout5.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.169) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Dec 2001 01:24:19 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-1 [24.92.226.139]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id fBU1OGq20471 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 20:24:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from riff ([24.92.246.4]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 20:24:16 -0500 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16KUgn-0000EV-00 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 20:23:01 -0500 Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 20:23:00 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Binary Language Message-ID: <20011230012300.GA730@twcny.rr.com> References: <01122921424201.00964@linux> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01122921424201.00964@linux> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.24i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2572649 X-Yahoo-Profile: squeekybobo On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 09:42:42PM +0100, Bj??rn Gohla wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Tuesday 25 December 2001 01:25, thinkit41 wrote: > > > No, talk and go would both be one argument concepts. That's how > > they are in english--the "to" and "about" can both be represented by > > sentence tags (modals). > > > > Between would end up as a one argument concept "is between". > > Combine would be two arguments, with the second one elaborated on in > > a further sentence. > > i may be wrong, but it seems that you are recreating the english grammar with > more complicated ways of expressing the indirect object. You'll notice that Thinkit thinks that the indirect object is nothing but an ordinary prepositional phrase or modal (which would be easily disproven by looking at, say, French or Spanish). Thinkit, what kind of idea words _would_ you use to express these modals? The only example you've given was where the main concept used the idea word "give" and the modal used "receive", which pycyn pointed out was rather silly. Given that the "about" of talking is a concept that very specifically applies to talking (please don't tell me you plan to make the idea word "is about", to cover all the times that comes up in English...), won't any idea word which is used to form that modal have a place which overlaps with your idea for "talk"? -- Rob Speer