From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Sat Apr 14 10:57:17 2001
Return-Path: <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>
X-Sender: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 14 Apr 2001 17:57:17 -0000
Received: (qmail 46397 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2001 17:57:16 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Apr 2001 17:57:16 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO hh.egroups.com) (10.1.10.40) by mta1 with SMTP; 14 Apr 2001 17:57:16 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de
Received: from [10.1.10.97] by hh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 14 Apr 2001 17:57:16 -0000
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:57:14 -0000
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Cmavo to never use
Message-ID: <9ba31q+nt8s@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <20010414123213.A475@twcny.rr.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Length: 1150
X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster
X-Originating-IP: 193.149.49.79
From: "A.W.T." <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>

--- In lojban@y..., Rob Speer <rob@t...> wrote:
> (in response to http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9411/msg00275.htm=
=3D=0D
l)
>=20
> I disagree that {la'i} is useless. Things that might share other
> characteristics because of sharing a name would be _objects_ that are nam=
=3D=0D
ed.
>=20
> {le karce vecnu pu vecnu la'i porc.} - The car salesman sold a set of Por=
=3D=0D
sches.
>=20
> In fact, because of this, I think that there should be a {la} equivalent =
=3D=0D
to
> {lo'e} and {le'e}. Using xa'e for this purpose (is it used already?) you =
=3D=0D
could
> say something like {xa'e pakrd. bel. poi skami cu spofu} - "The typical
> Packard Bell computer is broken."

lo'e/le'e la pakrd. bel. skami cu spofu
lo'e la makintoc skami na ka'e spofu ;-)
lo'e la porc. karce cu sutra gi'e kargu mi .oi le rupnu

Don't think that {xa'e} is necessary/really useful, unless for expressing n=
=3D=0D
onsensical ideas like I often use to do:
"Alle M=FCllers sind Bankr=E4uber oder Vergewaltiger" (xa'e muler. cu gi'a =
banx=3D=0D
a danre bo zerle'a gi zergle), yet couldn't even this be=20
accomplished by {lo'e la muler. prenu cu gi'a banxa danre bo zerle'a gi zer=
=3D=0D
gle}?

co'o mi'e .aulun.