Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: "not only"

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:36:45 EDT

In a message dated 4/19/2001 2:19:07 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> I don't at all accept your tricky "*are* (pregnant)", which is false - hence 
> all your further statements deducted.
> 
> {lo'e fetsi cu ka'e pazvau} -> true
> {lo'e fetsi po'onai cu ka'e pazvau} -> true
> {lo'e fetsi noi se zdani la'o gy The Carmel of Sts Tereesa and Therese gy 
> cu ka'e pazvau} -> true
> (I think, this doesn't claim that there are females there at all nor that 
> they're pregnant)
> {lo'e fetsi noi se zdani la cys. ge'u po'onai cu ka'e pazvau} -> ?????
> (is only the typical female *living in the Carmel* innately capable to be 
> pregnant?! Yet, using the {noi} here instead of {poi} maybe could save 
> here - not too sure though.)
> 
Are you sayiing that "Only females are pregnant" is false? That there is 
(among humans) something not female yet pregnant? How is this tricky?
Your examples about typical females is beside the point: "only" isn't about 
typicals but about real things.
I assume you mean {po'o}, not {po'onai} throughout -- as obscure as {po'o} 
is, {po'onai} is off the charts.
Note that the last couple of cases are not about typical specimens of females 
at a particular site, but about typical specimens of females. That they are 
at a particular site is added information, and quite probably false. Aside 
from that false information, the last two are obviously true, since we have 
established that typical females can be pregnant, presumably wherever they 
are. If the last sentences are false, then, it is because there are no 
typical females at the site indicated -- as seems likely, given the 
peculiarities involved in becoming a Carmelite nun -- or, in the last case, 
because it claims (as it seems to do) that the natural potential for 
pregnancy occurs only at that one place -- and a bad choice of place it is 
too.