From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Tue Jan 5 16:50:40 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 5 Jan 1993 12:46:37 -0500 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5132; Tue, 05 Jan 93 11:52:12 EST Received: from CUVMB.BITNET by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 1353; Tue, 05 Jan 93 11:51:44 EST Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:50:40 GMT Reply-To: C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK Sender: Lojban list From: C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK Subject: Re: TECH: se, te, & lujvo To: Erik Rauch Status: O X-Status: Message-ID: <1P2KTZrvQCJ.A.pMC.c70kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mark to And: > > >(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. > No, I don't think it is: it's a little more fundamental than dikyjvo, because And is asking whether lujvo such as this that are not formed from a true tanru (with the ambiguity that that introduces) should be treated as having that ambiguity at all. Colin