From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Sep 16 16:39:26 2002
Return-Path: <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 16 Sep 2002 23:39:26 -0000
Received: (qmail 57782 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2002 23:39:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216)
  by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Sep 2002 23:39:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.65)
  by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Sep 2002 23:39:26 -0000
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
  Mon, 16 Sep 2002 16:39:26 -0700
Received: from 200.69.6.47 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
  Mon, 16 Sep 2002 23:39:25 GMT
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Bcc: 
Subject: Could this be it? (was: I like chocolate)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 23:39:25 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F65cSWeRlrsbZkMzdqI00011763@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Sep 2002 23:39:26.0217 (UTC) FILETIME=[4AFD6790:01C25DDA]
From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.47]
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566
X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000


la and cusku di'e

>Something like {ta ckaji zei pixra tu'o du'u ce'u
>-diskette}, with {ckaji zei pixra} defined as "has visual aspects
>of property x2". This is much more like the case you've been
>talking about, but I am yet to be persuaded that it calls for
>{lo'e}.

Well, I wouldn't mind saying that, using {kairpixra} defined as
above, {ta pixra lo'e cukcma} means {ta kairpixra tu'o du'u
ce'u cukcma}. But, since {kairpixra} is not well defined in
terms of {pixra}, this doesn't really help to define {lo'e}.

But wait, we can at least define {pixra} in terms of {kairpixra}
as:

{ko'a pixra ko'e} <=> {ko'a kairpixra tu'o du'u ce'u du ko'e}

Then we have:

{ko'a pixra lo broda} =
{lo broda zo'u ko'a kairpixra tu'o du'u ce'u du by}

{ko'a pixra lo'e broda} =
{ko'a kairpixra tu'o du'u lo broda zo'u ce'u du by}

Now we can do the same for {viska}: We introduce a new predicate
{kairviska} that means "x1 sees something that exhibits property
x2". Then we have that {ko'a viska ko'e} is defined as
{ko'a kairviska tu'o du'u ce'u du ko'e}.

Then:

{ko'a viska lo broda} =
{lo broda zo'u ko'a kairviska tu'o du'u ce'u du by}

{ko'a viska lo'e broda} =
{ko'a kairviska tu'o du'u lo broda zo'u ce'u du by}

Can this be so simple and still be right, or am I forgetting
something?

What happens with the lion?

{kairselxabju} = x1 is inhabited by things with property x2"

{lo'e cinfo cu xabju le friko} =
{le friko cu se kairselxabju tu'o lo cinfo zo'u ce'u du cy}

So, if we understand the kair- predicates, we understand {lo'e}.

({sisku} was turned by force into what would have been {kairsisku},
but hopefully usage will bring it back to sanity.)

Can it really be so simple?

mu'o mi'e xorxes



_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com