From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed May 24 11:57:10 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9206 invoked from network); 24 May 2000 18:57:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 May 2000 18:57:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.35) by mta3 with SMTP; 24 May 2000 18:57:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 15892 invoked by uid 0); 24 May 2000 18:57:09 -0000 Message-ID: <20000524185709.15890.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 12.128.10.26 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 24 May 2000 11:57:09 PDT X-Originating-IP: [12.128.10.26] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] le ga'irfanta Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 11:57:09 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e > << > I know the book says > otherwise, but {pisu'o} just doesn't make sense to me, for > the same reason that {ro} has to be the default for {le}. >> >I'm torn, too. On the other hand, we both were advocating on another >thread >that the way to deal with dogs biting men was shift over to at both >places, so we did not have to have all dogs biting all men to make the >ordinary case work right. Yes, but I don't see a contradiction. When the dogs as one whole bite the men as one whole there is no need for each dog to bite each man. When the books as one whole are published, there is a need for each book to be published, especially if they are completely published. For something to bite, only one mouth is needed. What is needed for something to be in print? Is it enough that one part of it be in print? This is about the meaning of the predicate word, but the referent argument is in both cases the whole mass. co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com