From VILVA@VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI Sat Mar 6 22:52:39 2010 Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 10:43:33 -0500 From: VILVA@VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI Subject: Re: Lujvo Paper: continuation of examples from way back X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Message-ID: > Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1993 17:31:41 +1000 > From: Nick Nicholas > Subject: Lujvo Paper: continuation of examples from way back > This example may not be very convincing: after all, we can indeed talk of > a {le te kubli}, which corresponds exactly to {le xavmla}, describing the > cube's sides. Why not just rein in Lean Lujvo, and leave the x1 where it > is? Admittedly, brivla without an x1 make little sense; but to show how > pervasive the phenomenon is, consider {manskapi} as a translation of > "dark-skinned person". {le skapi} is skin, while {le se skapi} is the > person, so it makes sense to speak of {le se manskapi} for people so > complexioned. And indeed, when the lujvo was coined, it was used like that > to describe "blacks". But does it then make sense to speak of {le manskapi} > at all? In other words, can we tolerate as sensible a place structure saying: > "x1 is the dark skin of person x2", or "x2 is a dark-skinned person, with > skin x1"? I doubt it: the skin is clearly so uninteresting to the definition > of the person x2, that it seems absurd to accord it a place: the seltanru is > all the mention it deserves. This all would suggest a faulty veljvo --- but > no better veljvo is apparent. In this jvoste, I have retained the > irrelevant-seeming x1 in such cases; the alternative is too much havoc. But > we would be surprised to see forms like {le manskapi} be taken up in usage > independently from {le se manskapi}. > How about in cases like mi nelci le ko'a manskapi le le vi xabju ku manskapi cu melbi ko'e These sentences express 2 facts at the same time - the explicit stated fact and the implicit fact that we are talking about le se manskapi. co'o mi'e veion ------------------------------------------------------------------ Veijo Vilva vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi