From pycyn@aol.com Sat Jul 06 15:28:29 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 6 Jul 2002 22:28:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 96038 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2002 22:28:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Jul 2002 22:28:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m06.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.161) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Jul 2002 22:28:28 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.21.) id r.12b.13bd5b60 (3950) for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 18:28:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <12b.13bd5b60.2a58c904@aol.com> Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 18:28:20 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] pro-sumti question In-Reply-To F2597BBJXLGV0KTqQk900006d70@hotmail To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_12b.13bd5b60.2a58c904_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_12b.13bd5b60.2a58c904_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/6/2002 5:07:40 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > , every predicate probably has its own rules (place structures tend to > >be > >different), but that hardly seems a reason to say there are no rules. But > > >it > >is a good reason to put those rules in the dictionary. > > Well, a special rule for every occasion sounds very close > to no rules to me. I was not able to write a general rule for > the weight case that would apply to a class of properties. > What an odd thing to say -- the fact that we have a lot of rules means there are NO rules? There may not be any of great generality, but there is a rule that covers each case. And of course, the case about weights -- if there are other cases like it, ice-cream-eating, say -- can be covered by a general rule ("add numerical quantities") and a rather trivial guide to tell in what place (very remote in the ice cream case) that quantity is located (something for machines, not humans, obviously). --part1_12b.13bd5b60.2a58c904_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/6/2002 5:07:40 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


, every predicate probably has its own rules (place structures tend to
>be
>different), but that hardly seems a reason to say there are no rules.  But
>it
>is a good reason to put those rules in the dictionary.

Well, a special rule for every occasion sounds very close
to no rules to me. I was not able to write a general rule for
the weight case that would apply to a class of properties.


What an odd thing to say -- the fact that we have a lot of rules means there are NO rules?  There may not be any of great generality, but there is a rule that covers each case.  And of course, the case about weights -- if there are other cases like it, ice-cream-eating, say -- can be covered by a general rule ("add numerical quantities") and a rather trivial guide to tell in what place (very remote in the ice cream case) that quantity is located (something for machines, not humans, obviously). --part1_12b.13bd5b60.2a58c904_boundary--