From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Aug 06 12:08:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 6 Aug 2001 19:08:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 76611 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2001 19:08:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Aug 2001 19:08:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.103) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Aug 2001 19:08:32 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 12:08:32 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 06 Aug 2001 19:08:31 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: ka + makau (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 19:08:31 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Aug 2001 19:08:32.0035 (UTC) FILETIME=[2F078F30:01C11EAB] From: "Jorge Llambias" la xod cusku di'e > > > ko'a ko'e frica le ka ce'u prami ko'i > > > ko'a ko'e frica le ka ce'u prami ko'ikau > > > "X differs from Y in who they love" > > > > > >Does this imply that ko'a and ko'e love the same value for ko'i? > >What if ko'i is a mass? Think about 3 men and 2 dogs. A mass is still a single referent. You'd be saying that they both love the mass (each in their own way though, thus the difference). The 3 men 2 dogs problem was with non-masses. The mass case is the easy one. > > Yes, in both cases. According to some interpretation of > > the Codex Waldemari, {ko'ikau} would actually be equivalent > > to {ba'eko'i}. > >Where is that interpretation? It says kau can be attached to ma & da with >the same effect, so why not ko'a? I don't have the Book with me now, but I believe there is an example with {la djan kau} or similar? {ku'ikau} is just like it. About {lu'e}, I have two semi-objections which may or may not add up to one. Semi-objection 1: It already has a different meaning. The way I understand it, {lu'e} is the reverse operation of {la'e}, so {lu'e la'e di'u} = {di'u}, {lu'e la djan} = {zo djan} and I suppose {lu'e le klama} would be {lu le klama li'u} or something like that, i.e. essentially a text. I have never seen {lu'e} actually being used though, so if you can find a more useful meaning for it I won't object very strongly. You would re-define it as {lu'e ko'a} = {le du'u makau du ko'a}. Semi-objection 2: It only replaces {makau}, not {mokau}, {xokau}, {jikau}, {peikau}, etc, and even with {makau}, in many cases it makes the expressions more convoluted. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp