[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
No Subject
- To: John Cowan <cowan@snark.thyrsus.com>
- From: Undetermined origin c/o Postmaster <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!POSTMASTER>
- Comments: <Parser> W: Invalid RFC822 field -- "(5.64+1.3.1+0.50); id AA21930 Fri, 3 Apr 1992 09:". Rest of header flushed.
- Comments: <Parser> E: "From:"/"Sender:" field is missing.
- Reply-To: Undetermined origin c/o Postmaster <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!POSTMASTER>
- Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!LOJBAN>
And:
[re: loi remna cu morsi]
>If lo'i remna is neither male nor female, then this looks like the
>candidate for "Man is immortal".
>If loi remna is both male and female (& I reckon this is so), then this
>is rather iffy for "Man is mortal". "Man is mortal" means the typical person
>('man', to be safe) is mortal. But "loi remna is mortal" means that at least
>some part of loi remna, *but possibly only a single person* is mortal.
Ah, but {morsi} doesn't mean "mortal". It means "dead". At least some part
of loi remna, but possibly only a single person, was/is/will be dead. Let's
accept that {lo ca morsi} is exclusive of {lo ca remna}. In that case, the
proper phrase is {loi remna ba morsi}: in fact, the proper phrase is {ro
remna ba morsi}. But as for "Man is immortal", {loi remna roroi na'e morsi}:
at all times, at least part of the mass of loi remna is not already dead.
Having just endured three lectures on adjuncts vs. complements in Syntax,
I remember our discussion here on whether BAI phrases are still there after
you shut the fridge door, and I am endlessly amused :)
Nick.