Subject: Re: [lojban] pro-sumti question In-Reply-To F2597BBJXLGV0KTqQk900006d70@hotmail

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 18:28:20 EDT

In a message dated 7/6/2002 5:07:40 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] 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).