From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Aug 12 15:17:44 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 12 Aug 2001 22:17:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 26983 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2001 22:17:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 12 Aug 2001 22:17:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.201) by mta3 with SMTP; 12 Aug 2001 22:17:43 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 15:17:43 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.38 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 22:17:43 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.38] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: cenba Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 22:17:43 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Aug 2001 22:17:43.0552 (UTC) FILETIME=[9B8A1800:01C1237C] From: "Jorge Llambias" 1- le mi creka cu cenba fo le nu lumci py My shirt changed in the wash (e.g. it shrunk). 2- ?le creka cu cenba fo le nu le mi se klama cu cenba My shirt varies as my destination varies. Do we really approve of this type of ambiguity? In the first case, {le mi creka} refers to a particular object, which changes in some property. In 2, what seems to change is what the referent of {le mi creka} is. In 1, {cenba} describes a relationship between an object and an event. In 2, unless I'm misunderstunding something, it would be a relationship between the words, it says that the words of x1 change referent in consonance with the change of referent of the words of x2. Is that acceptable? mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp