From grey.havens@earthling.net Thu Apr 13 13:37:20 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13971 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2000 20:37:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 13 Apr 2000 20:37:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pacwan.fr) (195.200.168.234) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Apr 2000 20:37:19 -0000 Received: from tam (195.200.188.30) by pacwan.fr with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.2.1); Thu, 13 Apr 2000 22:37:22 +0200 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 22:36:22 +0200 (CEST) X-Sender: elrond@tam.n To: Lojban List Subject: silly question Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-eGroups-From: Elrond From: Elrond Hi, I'm reading/learning the grammar book, and I just hit an aspect of the language which isn't well-explained. It's about selma'o LA. Let's consider the following: le nu la djan. cmene ku cu fadni le cmene la'i djan. (begin-named John) (is common) (in-aspect-to naming) (among (the set of those named John) ). In the definition of {la'i}, properties of such-defined sets are properties of sets in general, in the particular case of the newly defined set. Unfortunately, in my above example, which is (hopefully) grammatical and sensible, I'm using a property (being-named john) which is commonly not applicable to sets. Therefore, my question is: am I missing something in the grammar book that makes the above bridi valid, or should I build the bridi in a different way to mean the same thing in a proper way ? Thanks for any enlightenment, raph -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS/TW/MU d(+) s:- a-- C++ UL++>+$ P+ L+++>+ E- W N o? K? (!)w-- O? M V? PS+ !PE Y PGP+ t? 5? X++@ R? !tv b+++ DI? D+ G++ e h r(-)% y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------