From snark!cowan@GVLS1.VFL.PARAMAX.COM Ukn Aug 3 22:34:16 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 3 Aug 1993 22:34:15 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9671; Tue, 03 Aug 93 22:33:07 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 9889; Tue, 03 Aug 93 22:34:32 EDT Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 11:47:00 EDT Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: Re: TECH: SE rafsi omitted in lujvo (was Re: dikyjvo, too, X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: <9308030043.AA03652@relay1.UU.NET>; from "Nick Nicholas" at Aug 3, 93 10:40 am Status: RO X-Status: Message-ID: la nitcion. cusku di'e > Nice! Strictly speaking yes, though there is an escape hatch: a se le'avla > (which is a se valsi, the le'avla meaning) is a selkemle'avla, and a se > selyle'avla a selkemselyle'avla/selselyle'avla. This is fortunate, because > the user may not realise (or agree) that le'avla is 'really' "short" for > selyle'avla. It is already established (but I forget where, and Nick should put it in his paper) that "selsel-" means "se ke se", because "se se" is not useful. Presumably this should apply to "ter-" and the other SE rafsi as well. So the current state of things is this: omitted SE in the seltanru does not affect the place structure (e.g. le'avla), whereas omitted SE in the tertanru does affect it (e.g. xekskapi)? If so, this too should be documented in Nick's paper. (Boy, I'm willing to make work for you.) -- John Cowan cowan@snark.thyrsus.com ...!uunet!lock60!snark!cowan e'osai ko sarji la lojban.