From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sat Feb 10 11:28:11 2001
Return-Path: <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 10 Feb 2001 19:27:51 -0000
Received: (qmail 93279 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2001 19:27:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Feb 2001 19:27:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mta06-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.46) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Feb 2001 19:27:50 -0000
Received: from andrew ([62.252.13.172]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010210192748.OOJV285.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 19:27:48 +0000
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] RE:su'u
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 19:26:53 -0000
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMKELNDJAA.a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
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
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
In-Reply-To: <F5au1g8mZElV5tTPEiR00010bce@hotmail.com>
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>

Xorxes:
> la djan cusku di'e
> 
> >We can if you
> >like replace all talk of Socrates with talk of the Socratizer, where
> >"x1 is a Socratizer" is a predicate that is (intensionally) true of
> >Socrates and nobody else. But does this really change anything?
> 
> If both views are equivalent it would have been much better
> to have selmaho CMENE behave just like any BRIVLA. The language
> would be much more parsimonious. It has always bothered me
> that I can't just say {*mi xorxes} or {*mi tcidu le djan cukta}.

I agree completely. But given that CMENE doesn't behave like
BRIVLA, how can we approximate to {*mi xorxes} and {*mi tcidu le djan 
cukta}? {me la [cmene]} seems not to do the trick, for reasons raised
earlier in the thread.

--And.