From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Mon Jul 10 15:14:17 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28047 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2000 22:14:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Jul 2000 22:14:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Jul 2000 22:14:03 -0000 Received: from m117-mp1-cvx1c.gui.ntl.com ([62.252.12.117] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 13BlfD-0002GO-00 for lojban@onelist.com; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 23:04:32 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] A defense of dead horse beating Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 23:13:55 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <396A0C8F.2D0FEED5@reutershealth.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" John: > And Rosta wrote: > > > Hold on, though. I can't think what use {da voi broda} would > > be, but surely it's not the same as {su'o le broda}, because > > the latter entails that there is a referent for {le broda}. > > I think they are the same, and both entail a referent. Using > "da" = "there exists at-least-one" surely means that it has a > referent. I meant a +specific referent. Sometimes 'referential' = +specific, confusingly. > > And isn't {ro lo broda} merely the same as {lo broda}? > > No, lo broda is su'o lo broda. OTOH, le broda is ro le broda. > > > I still don't see a gadri-based way of getting (the admittedly > > useless) {da voi broda}, though, which, after all, is not a bad > > thing. > > Hmm. What do you think "da voi broda" means, that would make it > useless? I've changed my mind. See "Some fucker has farted" in a previous message. --And.