From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Sat Apr 21 17:57:47 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 22 Apr 2001 00:57:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 19289 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2001 00:57:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Apr 2001 00:57:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.169.75.101) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Apr 2001 00:57:47 -0000 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 14r8CA-00076N-00 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 17:57:46 -0700 Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 17:57:46 -0700 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] sumti raising Message-ID: <20010421175746.L734@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com References: <9bt7fv+9lia@eGroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.17i In-Reply-To: <9bt7fv+9lia@eGroups.com>; from araizen@newmail.net on Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 12:09:35AM -0000 From: Robin Lee Powell On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 12:09:35AM -0000, Adam Raizen wrote: > Why is it that "tcica", "bapli" (among many others, probably) have an > event in the x1 place? Doesn't deception/coercion logically require a > deceiver/coercer, or is there some other meaning of these words that > doesn't require an actor? Because english underspecifies these cases. You're not decieved by a person, you're decieved by something they say or do. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest. le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno je xlali -- RLP http://www.lojban.org/