From mark@kli.org Wed Sep 13 19:57:12 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23706 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2000 02:57:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 14 Sep 2000 02:57:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pi.meson.org) (209.191.39.185) by mta2 with SMTP; 14 Sep 2000 02:57:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 28546 invoked by uid 1000); 14 Sep 2000 02:51:53 -0000 Date: 14 Sep 2000 02:51:53 -0000 Message-ID: <20000914025153.28545.qmail@pi.meson.org> To: lojban@egroups.com In-reply-to: <9a.98fd515.26f03dae@aol.com> (pycyn@aol.com) Subject: Re: [lojban] Eating glass, events, and rape References: <9a.98fd515.26f03dae@aol.com> From: "Mark E. Shoulson" >From: pycyn@aol.com >Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:17:18 EDT > > >In a message dated 00-09-12 17:24:40 EDT, mark writes: > ><< "I can eat glass; it doesn't hurt me" ... The Lojban > answer has been there for quite a while, and reads: > > mi ka'e citka loi blaci .i la'edi'u na xrani mi >> > >Careful. The perversity of English is such that, for some verbs, "can" means >"actually do," e.g., "I can see clearly now" and so for. In this case, I >suspect that this means "I have actually eaten glass on at least one occasion >and it (that particular act) did not hurt me." >The point about {l... nu} is probably well taken, though in this case {pino >lo...} works fine. I'm presuming that someone actually means this, and so {pu'i} might in fact be correct, but then again {ka'e} is silent on the realization of the potential... and so might the English be. I can live with {ka'e}, the emphasis here may indeed be the ability to eat glass hurtlessly. It could be, anyway. I understand the distinction you're making, though. I didn't make up the original version, btw. ~mark