Subject: RE:literalism

From: "Adam Raizen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:22:19 +0200

la pycyn cusku di'e

> Even the literalist
> allows that there are maybe a dozen (or maybe fewer, but more
> than one) rules and NO flag for which rule is used. 

Actually, I've always thought it would be useful if we could 
optionally indicate at least when the tanru/lujvo is asymmetrical, for 
the situation when a word which looks like an adjective (i.e. 
symmetrical) is used asymetrically. The symmetrical version of a 
tanru/lujvo can be expressed with 'je' or 'joi', and I suppose that that 
leaves the asymmetrical version as the default (which is considered 
the more 'justified' version according to Nick Nicholas' paper 
anyway.)

> Yet somehow
> some rules are canonized and others are suspect, on no stated nor
> defended basis: this is better (though ugly and hard to deal with)
> that that (though immediately clear and memorable) because it uses
> my favorite rule. Phooey!

I'd love more rules, but they have to deal with the place stucture. 
They have to be formalizable. (I suppose I'm being a literalist.) Any 
rule which relies on omitted words or figures of speech 
("metaphors") is hard to understand and probably culturally and 
idiolectally dependent.

For example, a pattern that I've sometimes seen is when the seltau 
modifies the entire bridi, as in e.g. 'spaji nerkla' (le nu nerkla cu 
spaji). Would it work to consider the place stucture of 
'pajykemnerkla' as 'n1 n2 n3 n4 n5 s2 (n=nerkla)'? Would it work to 
define this as type of tanru as broda zei brode = brode1 brode2 
brode3 brode4 brode5 broda2 broda3 broda4 broda5? Or maybe 
there's another way to analyze it.

co'o mi'e adam