From jcowan@reutershealth.com Mon Sep 16 09:44:08 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jcowan@reutershealth.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 16 Sep 2002 16:44:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 62533 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2002 16:44:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Sep 2002 16:44:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail2.reutershealth.com) (65.246.141.151) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Sep 2002 16:44:07 -0000 Received: from skunk.reutershealth.com (IDENT:cowan@[10.65.117.21]) by mail2.reutershealth.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA04864; Mon, 16 Sep 2002 12:55:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200209161655.MAA04864@mail2.reutershealth.com> Received: by skunk.reutershealth.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 16 Sep 2002 12:44:04 -0400 Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate To: jjllambias@hotmail.com (Jorge Llambias) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 12:44:04 -0400 (EDT) Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: from "Jorge Llambias" at Sep 16, 2002 03:27:11 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: John Cowan X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=8122456 X-Yahoo-Profile: john_w_cowan Jorge Llambias scripsit: > >So {viska lo'e boa} does make sense. Different from {viska lo boa}? > > To the extent that it would allow for personal visions, yes. > In normal circumstances, {viska lo'e sincrboa} should require > {viska lo sincrboa}. But this is because of the meaning of > {viska}, not because of the meaning of {lo'e sincrboa}. I find the concept "viska lo'e co'e" a bit disturbing, unless it were construed as "seeing something which has visual features typical of X", which would be yet a further extension of "lo'e". (Or would it?) > The abstract generics that can't be seen are not referred to > here. lo'e sincrboa ka'e se viska, boas can be seen. That which can be seen has a color, but what is the color of lo'e sincrbo'a? -- John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan "The exception proves the rule". Dimbulbs think: "Your counterexample proves my theory." Classicists think "'Probat' means 'tests': the exception puts the rule to the proof." But legal historians know it means "Evidence for an exception is evidence of the existence of a rule in cases not excepted from."