From robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx Sun Apr 18 06:02:39 1999
X-Digest-Num: 117
Message-ID: <44114.117.642.959273824@eGroups.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 16:02:39 +0300
From: Robin Turner <robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: di'e preti zo nu

la xorxes. cusku di'e

> You can't use the usual symbolic representation for that if by "need"
> you mean "x1 needs object x2".

That's why I didn't try!

> Allowing for events, you can put it
> into some form like:
> There is a set of boxes B and Need(I, (Ex x belongs to B & Have(I,x) )
> but this is definitely not {mi nitcu lo tanxe}, it is
> {mi nitcu le nu mi ponse lo tanxe}.
>

I was acting on the assumption that {mi nitcu lo tanxe} was the equivalent of {mi
nitcu lenu mi ponse lo tanxe}. As someone just pointed out, this is a from of
sumti-raising which the definition of {nitcu} seems to allow. It works like this
in every language I know (admittedly a very small subset of the set of
languages!).

> Yes, it would be interesting, for example, to get a list of all the usage
> that {lo'e}
> has seen so far. A good chunk of it would be my own usage, as I'm trying to
> describe it here, but seeing if and how other people use it can give us
> better
> ideas than trying to make up examples.
>

Hmm, some Lojban corpus linguistics. Would be worth a try.

>
> >Oh well, look on the bright side - nobody has _ever_ managed to come up
> with a
> >satisfactory explanation of English articles!
>
> Not even in Esperanto, which has only one article, is the usage fully
> explained,
> but of course in that case it is based on the usage of other languages. We
> should
> at least try to sort it out in Lojban though.
>

{.iecai} I've started playing around with some introductory lessons ({ta'o} as
have some other people - I think the best thing to do with the textbook is for
everyone interested to write something and then we can compare, contrast and
combine) but I'm dreading the point where I have to explain {le} and {lo}. I
really don't want to have to say something like "well, articles are really
complicated, and even the people who designed the language can't agree on what
they mean, so for the time-being just use them like "the" and "a", which is what
everyone else seems to do."

Since this is a question of clarifying the language more than of changing it, we
don't have to wait for the end of the baseline period. {.e'usai} Jorge, John, Bob
and any other interested elders shut themselves away in a virtual chateau for a
while, then come up with a specific and authoritative pronouncement. Obviously we
can't force usage on people, but I for one would be happy to use articles in any
way that is suggested, so long as the suggestion is clear enough.

co'o mi'e robin.