From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Wed Mar 28 20:34:08 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 1 Apr 1993 01:35:20 -0500 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3189; Thu, 01 Apr 93 01:33:59 EST Received: from CUVMB.BITNET by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 3877; Thu, 01 Apr 93 01:35:20 EST Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1993 01:34:08 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: TECH: only, {me} place structure X-To: cowan@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: OR Message-ID: Seeing your posting on this to Lojban, I read it a bit more carefully and saw that you indeed had called upon "srana". But the "me" place structure as is IS basically the one you propose, but with the shortening that "aspect" which should be a "ka/property abstract" should actually give the 2nd place of "srana" rather than repeat the srana. I suspect that "in aspect "leka du" would still work with the existing place structure, but I repeat my argument based on Zipf in my private message to you: "le du be [sumti]" is shorter and clearer than "me [sumti] be leka du", and likewise for the "srana" version of your proposal, whereas the existing place structure for "me" does give a slight Zipfean advantage over using "srana" "srana be [sumti] bei [leka aspect]" vs "me [sumti] [leka aspect], though it gives no advantage over "du" (which could be the selbri in the main-selbri version of "me"). Thus I favor the status quo. lojbab