From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Jun 03 11:14:47 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22162 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2000 18:14:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Jun 2000 18:14:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.20) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Jun 2000 18:14:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 95782 invoked by uid 0); 3 Jun 2000 18:14:47 -0000 Message-ID: <20000603181447.95781.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.42.154.52 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 03 Jun 2000 11:14:47 PDT X-Originating-IP: [200.42.154.52] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] First steps with 'being'... Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 11:14:47 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed From: "Jorge Llambias" la aulun cusku di'e >Is this correct? >mi klama zo'e ma .i mi mo .i mi klama ma >And what's about this: >ma te klama zo'e mi .i mi mo .i ma se klama mi They are grammatical, but I think they might not yet mean what you want. I suppose the metaphor of existence as a voyage is fairly universal, but I think that we are not yet at the point in Lojban where we can take even that kind of metaphor for granted. >Are there (still) other ways to express these old questions of >man(kind)? Maybe: {i ma mi krasi i ma mi fanmo} {mi mo} doesn't involve metaphors, but it could be too vague. You can give as profound or as shallow an answer as you like. >What's about the other way round with the second phrase? mo mi or: mo >cu mi (I'm all other than confident, though). {mo mi} is fine, {mo} is still the selbri and {mi} a sumti. The other is wrong, because cu can only come before a selbri. >Or: ma mi This is ok, but it has no selbri. I would interpret it as {ma mi co'e}, where the selbri in question is given by context. >In "mi mo", mo is representing a whole unknown selbri (with all its >unknown places). How can this being narrowed in to a more >specific question? Maybe with a tanru? {mi zasti mo} or {mi mo zasti} >In "do na mi" or "do na'e mi", mi is a whole selbri, aren't it? >(being-I); No, {mi} is always a sumti. Any sumti can be made into a selbri with {me}: {do na me mi} >are there any possible sumti of mi then? {me } only has one place, it means "x1 is one of the referents of ". co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com