[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab:
> At 02:57 PM 12/20/02 +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> > > > >I am not sure that pa nanmu necessarily has to be a single male
> > > > >human
> > > >
> > > >How about {pa naurka'u}?
> > >
> > >I don't know any claim that can be made of pa naurka'u
> >
> >{mi ca ca'o viska pa naurka'u} for example
>
> You can say it, but I have no idea what you saw as distinct from pa nanmu
To me, it's obvious: "pa naurka'u" means "one man", if "pa nanmu" means
"one quantity of man/men". If Lojban doesn't have a way to say "one
man" then we shall have to ask the BF to create one, since I'm sure
most of us would like to be able to say "one man".
> > >Any broda can be considered a substance. Some are not usefully considered
> > >a substance, but all MAY be
> >
> >Yes, but that does not call for a substance gadri
>
> I'm not sure I am calling for a substance gadri. That's the problem with
> these silly arguments; I've forgotten what the point was several days ago
The point of these silly arguments is to try to solve the problem that
nobody has a decent idea of what a great deal of basic stuff in the
language means.
--And.