Message-Id: <9202091928.AA01504@relay1.UU.NET>
Date:         Sun, 9 Feb 1992 13:22:17 EST
Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!shoulson>
Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!LOJBAN>
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!shoulson>
Subject:      Nitpick
To: John Cowan <cowan@snark.thyrsus.com>
In-Reply-To:  David Cortesi's message of Fri, 7 Feb 1992 08:00:50 -0800
Status: RO

>Date:         Fri, 7 Feb 1992 08:00:50 -0800
>From: David Cortesi <cortesi%INFORMIX.COM@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
>On Fri, 7 Feb 1992 09:22:51 EST, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:

>> ...  I'm also not sure of the semantics of {le piro rafsi zo du}, but I
>> *do* know that it has to be something like {ro rafsi *be* zo du}--you mean
>> the rafsi of "du", as you have it, he explains all the rafsi _to_ the word
>> "du".
>Well, testify thee hence, pasted from the gismu file:
>> rafsi   affix  x1 is a/the affix for Lojban primitive word x2, with
>> consonant/vowel formation x3.
>I will confess I have a lot of trouble with lexeme PA in general,
>but if "le piro rafsi zo du" doesn't mean "that described as all of
>the affixes of `du'," then I'm lost.

It wasn't the meaning or place-structures of {rafsi} I was complaining
about, it was your use of {le piro}.  For me, {piro} makes more sense on
massified thingies, which maybe this is.  I dunno.  I'd have used {ro
rafsi} (no {le}) or maybe {piro loi rafsi} or something.  Oh, and {le rafsi
zo du} doesn't mean "the affixes of 'du'", it means "the affixes; 'du'", as
two sumti.  The main point of my complaint about that sentence was that you
left out the {be}: {le rafsi be zo du}.

>> >.i ra'unai mi bacru le mi secmene ta'i lu la deiv. korteizis. li'u
>> Second sentence also has trouble:  {le se cmene} is the _thing named_, not
>> the name.  The name is {le cmene}...

>OK, I see your problem. I wanted to get the "mi" up front and the quote
>to the end of the clause and sentence. But the sense of "le" focusses
>on whatever is in x1, which after conversion is "mi."  Hence "le mi
>secmene..." is "the myself named by..."  Is that what you are getting at?

I think you're still missing it.  {le mi se cmene} is "The thing-named
associated with me".  On a good day, I can see it as "the myself named-by",
but you never say what it's named by.  You say "I utter my thing-named
in-form ...."  You actually want to utter your *name* (not thing-named) in
form...

>But how then can one say, "I pronounce my name as <quoted string>"?
>Perhaps by recognizing "my" as a restrictive clause?  How about:
>   mi bacru le cmene po mi ...
>but then what? Where do you stick the lu...li'u that is the real point
>of the sentence?

Either with {ta'i} as above, that'd work... no it wouldn't.  That would
imply that *you* have that form.  I'd do it {mi bacru le cmene be mi be'o
ne ta'i lu mark. clsn. li'u}, possibly with error quotes.  More likely,
though, I'd probably just say {mi se cmene lu mark. clsn. li'u} and leave
out that "pronounce" business.  That's implied by saying what my name is,
after all.

~mark (shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu)