From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Thu Sep 16 16:59:52 1993 Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 16 Sep 1993 16:59:52 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 16 Sep 1993 16:59:38 -0400 Message-Id: <199309162059.AA28210@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2233; Thu, 16 Sep 93 16:57:52 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 6710; Thu, 16 Sep 93 16:57:58 EDT Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 09:46:11 BST Reply-To: I.Alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk Sender: Lojban list From: Iain Alexander Subject: Re: possible sumti-raising place structures of the sisku variety X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: doi djan. > > cilre learn x1 learns x2 (du'u) about subject x3 from source x4 > > (obj./event)/by method x5 (event/process) *1h 85 (cf. ctuca, tadni, > > djuno, ckule) > Separate problem: the slash before "by method" doesn't belong there. I agree that the "/by method" is simply a typo. I imagine this is listed because of the "source x4 (obj./event)", which I didn't consider a problem on my first pass through, but now I'm not so sure. Do you learn from a teacher or from their teaching? I don't feel strongly enough about this to argue for a change. > > gidva guide x1 (person/object/event) guides/conducts/pilots/leads x2 > > (event) 5d 17 (cf. jitro, ralju, sazri, te bende, jatna) > I think this is mixed up with "lidne", and should be x1 (person) guides > x2 (person). I think a case could be made for allowing "person leads/guides event" or vice versa, but I can't get excited about it. > snura secure x1 is secure/safe from threat x2 (object/event) 9a 34 (cf. > ckape, kajde, marbi, terpa, xalni) > spuda reply 'respond' x1 answers/replies to/responds to > person/object/event/situation x2 with response x3 1h 67 (cf. cusku, > preti, nabmi, danfu, frati) I still think the threat is not the "object", but what it does or might do, and that you respond not to the "object", but to what it does. doi nitcion. > #zvati at x1 (object/event) is at/attending/present at x2 > #(event/location) 4d 184 [recation for an > #object/activity that is mobile]; (cf. especially stuzi for an > #inherent/inalienable location, jbini, nenri, se varji for physical > #shape, tapla, bliku, kubli, kurfa, cukla) > I can understand how an event can be a {se zvati}, but need it be a {zvati} > as well? I'd remove the event from x1. Or at least I'd like an example > where an event can be at another event, that doesn't sound forced. Events take place at locations as well - I'm not sure how else you express that. I can think of events which take place at events, but that's probably a lujvo like {simzva}, or maybe just {le fasnu xi pa cu cabna le fasnu xi re}. co'o mi'e .i,n.