From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Wed Jan 6 18:00:44 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:55:31 -0500 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8959; Wed, 06 Jan 93 13:02:31 EST Received: from CUVMB.BITNET by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 6266; Wed, 06 Jan 93 13:02:05 EST Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:00:44 +0000 Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Subject: Re: TECH: se, te, & lujvo X-To: lojban@cuvma.BITNET, "Mark E. Shoulson" To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: (Your message of Tue, 22 Dec 92 09:44:56 EST.) <9212221450.AA76734@link-1.ts.bcc.ac.uk> Status: O X-Status: Message-ID: > >(i) seljerna should be stipulated as synonymous with se jerna (unlike > >lujvo formed from tanru) > > >or > > >(ii) there ought to be a way of coining a lujvo whose x1 is an idiomatic > >variant of the x1 of the source gismu (if seljerna has an x1 that is > >an idiomatic variant of the x2 of the source gismu). > > Check me if I'm wrong: this sounds like a revival of the dikyjvo proposal. > You want a defined way of showing how the lujvo form (selbroda) relates to > the "tanru" form (se broda). It's the same ambiguity problem I had a while > back with {selpinxe}, which was used in the tanru {selpinxe ckafi} to mean > "beverage coffee", taking {selpinxe} to mean {na'o se pinxe}, while I > understood it as {caca'a se pinxe}, that is, "drunk coffee". It's dikyjvo > all over again; deal with that as you like. This ambiguity you raise is a nasty one, but I was making a different point. What I was trying to say was the following: (i) the meaning of a lujvo is not equivalent to the sum of its parts (ii) if _selgismu_ is not equivalent to _se gismu_, then there ought to be a way of getting a lujvo that fills the empty slot in the following pattern: le se gismu le selgismu le gismu ___________ I am not trying to suggest that the place structure of a lujvo should be predictable. ---- And.