From cbmvax!uunet!mullian.ee.Mu.OZ.AU!nsn Fri Dec 13 05:40:34 1991 Return-Path: From: cbmvax!uunet!mullian.ee.Mu.OZ.AU!nsn Message-Id: <199112130836.AA21358@munagin.ee.mu.OZ.AU> To: lojbab@grebyn.com (Logical Language Group) Cc: nsn@mullian.ee.Mu.OZ.AU, cowan@snark.thyrsus.com, nsn@mullian.ee.Mu.OZ.AU Subject: Re: dikyjvo and rinka In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 10 Dec 91 17:49:11 CDT." <9112102249.AA16465@daily.grebyn.com> Date: Fri, 13 Dec 91 19:36:59 +1100 Status: RO >I'm not following your argument on 'indirect objects' since I don't understand >what they are in Lojbanic terms. I meant indirect actors. Look, here's how you define {gasnu} da gasnu lenu da broda de ni'o da gasnu lenu di broda de .ijo ge da brode daxivo gi daxivo gasnu lenu di broda de Because in my mind I identify actor with grammatical subject, I tended to the first interpretation only. If you indeed allow the second, note that {gasnu} becomes no longer compulsorily cleft. This may be messy. >You say that le sudgau = le sudga, do you >thus also say = le jaigau sudga. If so, then you make gasnu indeed rather >worthless, and in effect deny the POSSIBLE distinction of an agentive case >from just any old 'subject'. Is this your intent? I plain don't use {gau}, since I don't like this semantic vagueness you're introducing (that, coupled with its syntactic inflexibility - you can't uncleft an x2 - is why I launched my {xai}. And I don't like a distinct agentive case; I think it waffle. On the other hand, such waffle is what the dynamicism of Esp affixes is based on, and I can learn to live with {-gau} as a suffix. >To clarify perhaps: if le sudgau = le sudga, this suggest also that >le selsudgau = le selsudga, because the liquid which is removed is no more >active than the wheat. The argument can be extended to all such places. Yup, from the purely formal understanding of {gasnu} I have. I am prepared to abandon this perception, but would have to see someone else use {gasnu} as you'll have it usefully in prose first.