From LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:53:00 2010 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 28 Jul 1993 15:46:08 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.CIS.YALE.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4547; Wed, 28 Jul 93 15:44:45 EDT Received: from YALEVM.CIS.YALE.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@YALEVM) by YALEVM.CIS.YALE.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 3112; Wed, 28 Jul 1993 15:44:43 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 15:44:14 EDT Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: dikyjvo, too, bites the dust X-To: nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Ukn Jul 28 15:46:17 1993 X-From-Space-Address: lojbab@GREBYN.COM Message-ID: Actually, I suspect that a better basis for the concept is "rule" (javni) seljva and terjva each have their positive aspects for interpreting jimc's approach. Hence seljvajvo or terjvajvo (or make life easy on yourself and just say "jvajvo". One argument against Colin's complaint about le'avla (that it should be selyle'avla) is applicable here - in a sense any and all places of the modifier apply if there is an event involved. Yet the event itself is not necessarily the modifier either. In the case of le'avla, there is a taker involved (th 'borrower') as well as a tken thing, and a source, and an event, and properties, etc. Likewise here, there are rules that exist (or rather are proposed) to govern lujvo. Any of the places of javni can legitimately modify lujvo and you get the same or at elast a closely related concept. Indeed, I suspect that the dikyjvo/jvajvo rules will give approximately the same place structure under Nick's interpretation, though with perhaps a different ordering of terms. Nick? What does your understanding of dikyjvo as interpreted in your place structure paper say about "le'avla" vs "selyle'avla"? (If you actually addressed this example, my apologies for not having read the papers.) lojbab