Re: whiskey lovers

[ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>]

Lojbab:
> > > I haven't been following the thread real closely, but what's wrong with
> > > lo ka lo glipre cu vusnei la uiskis. cu toljinzi
> > > Property of (an Englishman having taste for whiskey) is non-inherent.
> > I don't understand this ka clause. Whose property is it?
> "ka" properties need not "belong" to any one/thing.  Let me phrase this in
> English:
> Fondness for whiskey among Englishmen isn't an inherent property of
> Englishmen or of whiskey (or of fondness, for that matter).

X1 of ka is the property, x2 of ka is the possessor. To get a property
without a possessor, you need ziho in x2 of ka. And then I wouldn't
understand it. If {ka broda} expresses the properties responsible for
things being categorizable as (a) broda, then what does {ka koha
nelci kohe} mean? The properties responsible for things being categorizable
as a nelci? For koha being categorized as a nelci? For things being
categorized as a se nelci? For kohe being categorized as a se nelci?

> >> No, because there is no claim that the typical-generic englishman likes
> >> whisky, though I concede that the claim is made that the typical-generic
> >> englishman that likes whisky acquires the liking.
> >Oh, you wanted THAT claim? :) Even simpler: {lo'e glipre cu pu'o vusnei
> >la .uiskis.} should state that... Typical Englishman is (at least at one
> >time) before beginning to like whiskey.
>
> Goran is of course from a place thatuses perfective tenses, so I tend to
> trust this.  I would have said:
>
> lo'e glipre cu binxo lo vusnei be la .uiskis.
>
> (I won't pretend to figure out how this works under the idea that "lo" =
> "da poi")

It should be {lohe glipre poi vusnei la .uiskis} or {lohe nu lo glipre
vusnei la .uiskis}. No claim is being made about the typical Englishman,
only about the typical E that likes whisky, or the liking for whisky
of the typical E.

-----
And