From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Wed Mar 17 15:09:05 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 17 Mar 1993 10:42:06 -0500 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7530; Wed, 17 Mar 93 10:40:57 EST Received: from CUVMB.BITNET by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 8897; Wed, 17 Mar 93 10:42:04 EST Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 15:09:05 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK Sender: Lojban list From: Mr Andrew Rosta Subject: se jerna & seljerna, revisited X-To: lojban@cuvma.BITNET To: Erik Rauch Status: O Message-ID: Some weeks ago on this list I kept on harping on the following two points; (1) Must _se jerna_ be synonymous with _seljerna_? (2) If not, one might wish for a way of deriving a lujvo from simply _jerna_ (as opposed to _se/te/xe jerna_) such that the x1 of the lujvo corresponds to the x1 of _jerna_. The upshot was that the answer to (1), coming from Lojbab & Colin, was "no", though no convincing supporting arguments were given (i.e. the No was basically stipulated), and that the answer to (2) (from Lojbab) was that this desideratum seemed rather pointless & that the closest thing was a cmavo that signals loose usage. I think I can now answer both questions satisfactorily. (1) No. The proof is that while _se jerna_ must have the place structure of _jerna_, with x1 & x2 swapped, _seljerna_ can have an utterly different place structure. (2) The solution is _selseljerna_. This is exactly what I was looking for: one would expect this to have the place structure of _se se jerna_ = _jerna_, but in principle the structure can be completely different. This technique would work for all but 1-place gismu(s) - in fact, I imagine that it might even work for 1-place gismu(s) as well. ---- And.