From pycyn@aol.com Thu Apr 19 15:37:00 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 19 Apr 2001 22:37:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 16165 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2001 22:36:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Apr 2001 22:36:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r12.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.66) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Apr 2001 22:36:58 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id r.71.cacd461 (1769) for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:36:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <71.cacd461.2810a65d@aol.com> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:36:45 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: "not only" To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_71.cacd461.2810a65d_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_71.cacd461.2810a65d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/19/2001 2:19:07 PM Central Daylight Time, Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de 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. --part1_71.cacd461.2810a65d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/19/2001 2:19:07 PM Central Daylight Time,
Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de 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.
--part1_71.cacd461.2810a65d_boundary--