Subject: Re: Some ideas/questions (long)

From: "oskar2379" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 04 May 2003 22:51:57 -0000

> Possibly but not necessarily. If you mean that, use the "habitual"
> tense cmavo. For a counterexample, consider the case in which I 
(x1)
> remain silent (x2) while being tickled (x3) when I am trying to hide
> (x4). This is definitely not my habitual response to being tickled!

I think I know why this is confusing me. It's sort of like the 
example I gave before, with fengu, in which the doer and the action 
are seperated, when they should be together as an abstraction in one 
place. What do you think of 'x1 prompts/stimulates the reaction x2'? 
This is sort of like gasnu except x2 is a reaction to x1 rather than 
a product of x1.

'under conditions' is left out because I figured (based on your 
example) that it could be either a conditional statement or an 
explicit reason: 'I remain silent BECAUSE I am trying to hide' vs. 'I 
remain silent ONLY WHEN I am trying to hide'.

> > 'the image of a cat'. The word 'of' usually implies association, 
as 
> > if it were a *part* of the cat.
> 
> The "of" in this case is just part of the grammatical machinery of
> English, sort of equivalent to Lojban "be". When I speak of "the
> mother of John", I don't imply that John's mother is part of John.
> Alternatively, you wind up saying that everything John stands in 
relation
> to is part of John, which reduces the idea of "part" to a nullity.

That's true, but isn't your own image a part of you? At least 
metaphorically?

---

From: "oskar2379" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 04 May 2003 22:51:57 -0000

(x1)

as 
relation