From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Wed Mar 28 19:37:30 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 1 Apr 1993 00:38:05 -0500 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3043; Thu, 01 Apr 93 00:36:44 EST Received: from CUVMB.BITNET by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 3655; Thu, 01 Apr 93 00:38:06 EST Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1993 00:37:30 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: TECH: grammar updates X-To: cowan@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: OR Message-ID: In checking all of these usages, how do you KNOW that the comparsion was not incidentally claiming the 2nd (I guess maybe if you have the translation you can see this). I also think "semau" is quite usable with "pe" as well, though I agree that people will more often tend to use a lujvo, since we are used to having a comparative suffix in English. Languages that use comparatives with grammatical structures rather than a morphological ending might be more prone to the cmavo version of comparison. I don't think that the ne/pe version is "confusing", as you claim. Indeed it seems to me to serve as an ideal example of how "ne" DOES make the secondary claim about the relative sumti, making the teaching of "ne" clearer. YOu then make the textbook explain that the more common English usage needs to use a different selbri, which again serves to focus people on thinking about what they are really saying. This after all is what Colin did in arguing us out of restoring "mo'u". The need for such reality checks in teaching the logical aspects of the grammar is vital to the success of same. lojbab