From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Mon Aug 13 18:15:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 14 Aug 2001 01:15:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 35369 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2001 01:15:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Aug 2001 01:15:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta05-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.45) by mta3 with SMTP; 14 Aug 2001 01:15:37 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.56]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010814011536.MSIL20588.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 02:15:36 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] cenba Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 02:13:54 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: From: "And Rosta" Jorge: > 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? Certainly not! > 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? Not really. I think 2 should be 2'- le nu ms ksu creka cu cenba .... or 2'' lo'i creka cu cenba .... "What is my shirt depends on what is my destination" --And.