From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Jun 16 14:25:53 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26610 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2000 21:25:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Jun 2000 21:25:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.246) by mta2 with SMTP; 16 Jun 2000 21:25:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 56869 invoked by uid 0); 16 Jun 2000 21:25:52 -0000 Message-ID: <20000616212552.56868.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.49.74.2 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:25:52 PDT X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: lujvo Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:25:52 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed From: "Jorge Llambias" la pier cusku di'e >If you don't mark it as metaphor, you should say "le morsi xirma" - "lo" >means >that it really is a horse. But it really is a horse as much as it really is a beating. What's the point of hiding the horse part if I can't hide the beating part. >We say "kick the bucket", not "kick a bucket", >because there is no real bucket and it's an idiom. I doubt very much that is the reason for "the". If the origin of that expression is known, it may explain why it is a definite bucket and not any bucket that one kicks. Is the origin known? >Why we don't say "beat the >dead horse" I don't know - but let's reserve "lo" in Lojban for things that >really are brodo. But le is normally used for things that really are brodo too. That is not the important distinction between le and lo, although unfortunately it is a point that is extremely overemphasized in the learning materials. co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com