From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Thu Apr 19 12:33:41 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 19 Apr 2001 19:33:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 591 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2001 19:33:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Apr 2001 19:33:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta01-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.41) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Apr 2001 19:33:39 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.252.12.161]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010419193337.STHG283.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:33:37 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Q Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:32:45 +0100 Message-ID: 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 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Xorxes: > la and cusku di'e > > >IIRC Jorge was questioning the utility of the subtypes > >of {nu} (and I would disagree with him on that point). > > Yes, that was my original stand. Then I also agreed with > Adam that the distinction we are forced to make between > nu/ka/du'u is redundant, in this case because the > place that is being filled by these in general by itself > determines which one should be used. x1 describes x2 x1 discusses x2 x1 notices similarities among members of x2 &c. -- in all these, x2 could equally well be a nu or a ka or a du'u. But yes, the distinction is usually redundant. --And.