Message-Id: From: cowan@snark.thyrsus.com (John Cowan) Subject: Re: Abstraction paper, draft 1.0 To: nsn@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Nick Nicholas) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 11:34:03 -0500 (EST) X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 > I'd say: that would appear to be part of the abstraction were "kei" to have > been elided. Changed to "would appear...if 'kei' had been elided". The subjunctive is good Commonwealth English here, but is too alien to the rest of my American English. > vasxu *smile*. i.a'ocaizo'o do na sipna ca'o piro.ue ledo za'i jmive mi panpi Fixed. > Do you ever actually explain this motivation? "Elsewhere" means "in another paper". When the papers are merged into a book, I'll replace all instances of "elsewhere" with "in Chapter ". > I'd reword this: the actuality should be the emphasis of {jei}, but 'actuality' > is a somewhat obscure word to be used here, and doesn't draw attention to > itself. Perhaps "the truth of the claim that"? Reworded to "the truth (or probability) of the claim that". > Not quite clear to a non-initiate; I think you need to dwell on this a bit > further. In particular, point out that actual physical events cannot be > contained within one's mind, and that 7.2 is close to claiming Frank is > running around inside your skull, unless it's a sumti-raising. After all, > the English gloss you give is perfectly plausible English. Done. > Explain why not, ie that it would give a direct question. Done. > This isn't kosher, I know, but for the non-initiates, do add the comment that > predication is akin to sentence. I had rather add "fact that" than "sentence that", to avoid confusing further the subtle distinction between "du'u" and "sedu'u". > I'd gloss {tu'a le vorme} as "some action to do with the door", making it's > LAhE nature explicit. Done. > You use the new rafsi for {ni} and {kalri}, but the old rafsi for {ka} (should > be kam, not kaz). Right, missed that change. "kar" for "kalri" has been there since day one. > Didn't we get around to giving rafsi to all the abstractors without them > in the rafsi overhaul? And shouldn't we? I'm sure there are enough to go > around. No, we didn't. Possibilities: li'i lip- liz- si'o sif- siz- su'u suf- sus- suv- sux- za'i zab- zad- zaf- zak- zam- zap- zav- zax- zaz- zu'o zub- zuc- zud- zuf- zuj- zum- zup- zur- zus- zuv- zux- zuz- pu'u pub- puf- pug- pup- puv- pux- puz- mu'e mub- muf- mug- mux- Given the size of this list, I agree that these should be rafsi-fied. My preferences are liz, siz, sus, zam, zum, puz, and mub. Comments? -- John Cowan cowan@snark.thyrsus.com ...!uunet!lock60!snark!cowan e'osai ko sarji la lojban.