From oskar2379@hotmail.com Sun May 04 15:52:16 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: oskar2379@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_6); 4 May 2003 22:52:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 12076 invoked from network); 4 May 2003 22:52:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 May 2003 22:52:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n13.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.68) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 May 2003 22:52:15 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.158] by n13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 May 2003 22:52:00 -0000 Date: Sun, 04 May 2003 22:51:57 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Some ideas/questions (long) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20030504205158.GF28808@ccil.org> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1439 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "oskar2379" X-Originating-IP: 68.168.163.103 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=146348372 X-Yahoo-Profile: oskar2379 > 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@hotmail.com Sun May 04 15:52:16 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: oskar2379@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_6); 4 May 2003 22:52:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 12076 invoked from network); 4 May 2003 22:52:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 May 2003 22:52:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n13.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.68) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 May 2003 22:52:15 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.158] by n13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 May 2003 22:52:00 -0000 Date: Sun, 04 May 2003 22:51:57 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Some ideas/questions (long) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20030504205158.GF28808@ccil.org> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1439 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "oskar2379" X-Originating-IP: 68.168.163.103 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=146348372 X-Yahoo-Profile: oskar2379 > 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?