From biomass@hobbiton.org Wed Apr 18 15:18:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: biomass@hobbiton.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 18 Apr 2001 22:18:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 77348 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2001 22:18:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Apr 2001 22:18:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO elrond.hobbiton.org) (216.161.236.97) by mta1 with SMTP; 18 Apr 2001 22:18:28 -0000 Received: from hobbiton.org (biomass@thorin.hobbiton.org [216.161.236.98]) by elrond.hobbiton.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f3IMLRw12713 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:21:27 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (biomass@localhost) by hobbiton.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f3IMFtp16863 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:15:55 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:15:55 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: biomass@thorin To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: gerku zdani Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Avital Oliver ko'a zdani be lo nargerku or, if you wish, ko'a zdani be lo na'e gerku "x is a house for non-dogs". xu ko'a gerku zdani According to the definition of a tanru, there has to exist any relatio between ko'a, gerku and zdani. Well, here, it exists. This actually means that any is a , for any given broda and brode, since you can arbitrarily add 'na' as you wish to make any relation correct. I think tanru are defined incorrectly as 'having any relation', and should be defined as 'having an unspecified, implicit relation', parallel to zo'e. What do you guys think? (Jay Kominek and zeduard already hate me for this)