From pycyn@aol.com Mon May 28 17:56:29 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 29 May 2001 00:56:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 11263 invoked from network); 29 May 2001 00:56:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 May 2001 00:56:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m07.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.162) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 May 2001 00:56:28 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.37.15bf7043 (25100) for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 20:56:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37.15bf7043.28444db1@aol.com> Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 20:56:17 EDT Subject: Re: Grammar Clarifications To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_37.15bf7043.28444db1_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_37.15bf7043.28444db1_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit lojbab-xorxes-lojbab: <> >A question iswhether one really needs a predicate that > >totally within itself with no other sumti means "is a Ford". > >Right. And would the same conversion apply to "is a Picasso"? >And then, would it extend to "is a Beethoven" about a symphony? >Or "is a Shakespeare" about a play? Or "is aEurhythmics" about >a song? Sounds English-colloquial to me. srana seems adequate. Though probably co'e is even better.> I kinda like {co'e}, though its total non-commitment to any particular relation gets back to what {me} became at a certain point. Of course, with {le} we are home free anyhow, but with {lo} we get into complications about things made by Ford, things that belong to the (various) Fords, things that fell on the (various) Fords, and so on for every. But it does give a device for picking the colloquial (but not only English, surely) use of proper names in common-noun senses. Of course, that idiom might ruin {co'e} for its main invisible use as the predicate suppressed by {tu'a}. --part1_37.15bf7043.28444db1_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit lojbab-xorxes-lojbab:
<> >A question iswhether one really needs a predicate that
> >totally within itself with no other sumti means "is a Ford".
>
>Right. And would the same conversion apply to "is a Picasso"?
>And then, would it extend to "is a Beethoven" about a symphony?
>Or "is a Shakespeare" about a play? Or "is aEurhythmics"
about
>a song?

Sounds English-colloquial to me. srana seems adequate. Though probably
co'e is even better.>

I kinda like {co'e}, though its total non-commitment to any particular
relation gets back to what {me} became at a certain point. Of course, with
{le} we are home free anyhow, but with {lo} we get into complications about
things made by Ford, things that belong to the (various) Fords, things that
fell on the (various) Fords, and so on for every. But it does give a device
for picking the colloquial (but not only English, surely) use of proper names
in common-noun senses. Of course, that idiom might ruin {co'e} for its main
invisible use as the predicate suppressed by {tu'a}.

--part1_37.15bf7043.28444db1_boundary--