From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Mon May 17 14:57:01 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Mon, 17 May 1993 14:57:01 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5686; Mon, 17 May 93 14:56:20 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 1442; Mon, 17 May 93 14:57:23 EDT Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 19:56:39 BST Reply-To: I.Alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk Sender: Lojban list From: Iain Alexander Subject: Re: TECH: from Nora, again on xo'e X-To: cowan@snark.thyrsus.com X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: Message-ID: la kau,n. cusku di'e > ... I hold that this mechanism removes a place from consideration, > rather than affirmatively stating that the place can have no value. Thus > I hold that "mi klama" entails "mi litru", because "litru" means > "klama be xo'e bei xo'e". "litru" is simply a 3-place predicate whose > places are a subset of "klama"s. So "klama be fu xo'e" is a relationship > related to "klama", but without the possibility of specifying a route. > This is not the same as saying there is no route (be fu noda) or that > there is a route but I am not specifying it (be fu zo'e). This isn't quite what I thought, but appears eminently logical (and reasonable). :) But ... if you _do_ want to assert e.g. movement-without-route, you can't just use {klama be fo noda} ({le fu klama} is the means of transport btw), since that doesn't assert _any_ kind of {nu klama} - as lojbab pointed out the negation from {no} applies to the whole predication. You would have to do something like {klama be fo xo'e .e noda}, which states that there _is_ some kind of place-deleted going happening, but not one involving a route. > Semantically, "soi sumti sumti" means that the bridi > remains true if the referents of the two sumti, which are typically reflexives, > are exchanged; omitting one sumti means that one of the exchangees is the > immediately preceding sumti, thus: > > mi prami do soi vo'a vo'e > I love you [reciprocity] [x1] [x2] > I love you and you love me. > > mi prami do soi vo'a > I love you [reciprocity] [x1] > I love you and vice versa. Thank you for explaining that one - it's the first time I've seen any real explanation of {soi}. > I still cannot come up with any satisfactory scheme for marking place deletion > directly in the selbri, where it belongs. My general idea is that there > should be a new sort of SE-equivalent, similar to JAI, which has the effect > of deleting a specified place (swapping it with limbo?), with a format > something like "xi'o #" where "#" indicates which place to delete. But > all ways of specifying "#" (SE cmavo, FA cmavo, actual numbers) seem unbearably > ugly. Can anyone see how to do this? Beats me. mi'e .i,n.