Received: from localhost ([::1]:53961 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1aM5ZR-0000Jc-AU; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:06:01 -0800 Received: from smtp.hughes.net ([69.168.97.48]:23934) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1aM5ZN-0000Ie-9S for llg-members@lojban.org; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:05:58 -0800 X-Authed-Username: cGhtYUBodWdoZXMubmV0 X_CMAE_Category: 0,0 Undefined,Undefined X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=VO/kwb/X c=1 sm=0 tr=0 a=5n1d6GSJGnnyfnXdd0Hfiw==:117 a=5n1d6GSJGnnyfnXdd0Hfiw==:17 a=K-v-2zaBAAAA:8 a=L9H7d07YOLsA:10 a=9cW_t1CCXrUA:10 a=s5jvgZ67dGcA:10 a=8ggJXkvBAAAA:8 a=JNFw9bs7AAAA:8 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=7aQ_Q-yQQ-AA:10 a=DAMAAFs2xPygpr_NRTMA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 X-CM-Score: 0 X-Scanned-by: Cloudmark Authority Engine Authentication-Results: smtp01.hughes.cmh.synacor.com smtp.mail=phma@leaf.dragonflybsd.org; spf=neutral; sender-id=neutral Authentication-Results: smtp01.hughes.cmh.synacor.com header.from=phma@leaf.dragonflybsd.org; sender-id=neutral Authentication-Results: smtp01.hughes.cmh.synacor.com smtp.user=phma; auth=pass (LOGIN) Received-SPF: neutral (smtp01.hughes.cmh.synacor.com: 174.109.123.133 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of leaf.dragonflybsd.org) Received: from [174.109.123.133] ([174.109.123.133:42103] helo=bezitopo.org) by smtp.hughes.net (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.49 r(42060/42061)) with ESMTPSA (cipher=AES256-SHA) id 67/14-30538-C0B40A65; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 22:05:50 -0500 Received: from caracal.localnet (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bezitopo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A9BC7B08 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 22:05:47 -0500 (EST) From: Pierre Abbat To: llg-members@lojban.org Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 22:05:46 -0500 Message-ID: <80746436.1y1rc6JMGV@caracal> User-Agent: KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.13.0-74-generic; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <563CBDA4.5080308@selpahi.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Note: SpamAssassin invocation failed Subject: Re: [Llg-members] "Modal" X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 19:08:01 Curtis Franks wrote: > I agree with the general sentiment that "modal" is bad and I think that we > should use purely Lojbanic terminology in the main treatment of the > material, offering translations and explanations in other languages > (definitely including the primary non-Lojban language of the resource at > hand) upon introduction of the concepts. I also believe that sumtcita-hood > is a role and not a class of words, although I and others often do not make > the distinction (which is entirely our fault and should be fixed for any > careful, instructive or official presentation of this material- so that > future generations think in properly precise terms). I suppose that "tcita > valsi" or "tcityvla" could work as names for the general class of cmavo > that sometimes function as sumtcita (and possibly includes other markers as > well). I read in Wikipedia that "proper preposition" is indeed used for words that are primarily prepositions, while members of other parts of speech used as prepositions are called "improper prepositions". A fi'o-phrase is called "complex preposition". For Lojban terms, I suggest "seljinzi sumtcita", "nalseljinzi sumtcita", and "pluja sumtcita". Pierre -- gau do li'i co'e kei do _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members