From araizen@newmail.net Sat Apr 21 12:38:56 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 21 Apr 2001 19:38:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 2126 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2001 19:38:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Apr 2001 19:38:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hn.egroups.com) (10.1.2.221) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Apr 2001 19:38:55 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: araizen@newmail.net Received: from [10.1.10.97] by hn.egroups.com with NNFMP; 21 Apr 2001 19:38:54 -0000 Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 19:38:52 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Three more issues Message-ID: <9bsnkc+bkc2@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 788 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 62.0.180.245 From: "Adam Raizen" la xorxes cusku di'e > > la Avital cusku di'e > > >I don't seem to understand. Why aren't several words cu valsi? > > Could you ask the question in Lojban please? > Each of several words certainly is valsi: > {le so'o valsi cu valsi}. A group of words, however, > is not a word: {lei so'o valsi cu valsi so'omei gi'enai valsi} > Isn't it it an elementary point about lojbanic masses that since a portion of the mass of "lei so'o valsi" is a valsi, the whole mass is a valsi. The question is about "(sel)brivla". I don't see why "lei so'o valsi cu selbrivla" isn't correct (parellel to "lei prenu cu bevri le pipno", chapter 6, example 3.2), but "le so'o valsi cu selbrivla" is false because neither "nu" nor "kei" is a "valsi lo selbri" (though it is a "valsi da"). mu'o mi'e adam