From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Feb 17 18:55:57 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 18 Feb 2001 02:55:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 82655 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2001 02:55:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Feb 2001 02:55:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.201) by mta3 with SMTP; 18 Feb 2001 03:56:56 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 18:55:51 -0800 Received: from 24.232.1.227 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 02:55:51 GMT X-Originating-IP: [24.232.1.227] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Meaningless talk Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 02:55:51 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Feb 2001 02:55:51.0415 (UTC) FILETIME=[4D93E870:01C09956] From: "Jorge Llambias" la xod cusku di'e >What's the difference? A claim is a function performed on sumti. I am >trying to say every relationship (function) in the sentence can be tested. It seems to me you do understand the difference. It is not the function that gets tested but its use. >I wonder why you think it's ugly. I found it rather elegant. Because it goes against the grain of the language. {ro bu'a} normally means "every x such that bu'a(x)", just like {ro mlatu} means "every x such that mlatu(x)", but in the prenex {ro bu'a} acquires a very different meaning. >bu'a is of cmavo go'a, acting like a selbri, so the cu'u should apply as a >place of bu'a. No it shouldn't. In {ro broda cu'u da} you have two terms, {cu'u da} does not act as a place of {broda}. {ro bu'a} is a sumti, like {ro go'a}. You could attach the cu'u to it using {be}: {ro bu'a be cu'u da}, but I still don't think it means what you want. It is very hard to add anything to {ro bu'a} precisely because it has such a weird interpretation, and it would mean one thing when it appears in the prenex and something else when it appears in the main bridi. >How about >2: .i ro bu'a cu'u da zo'u di cipra fi le jei bu'a I still don't see how {cu'u da} could work there. I would avoid using {bu'a} altogether: i ro de poi da cusku ke'a zo'u di cipra fi de > > i mi do na tugni le sidbo i pe'i so'i se smuni na ka'e te cipra > > le ka fatci > >go'i mu'a ma i mu'a lu ro se smuni cu te cipra le kamfatci da li'u co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.