From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Thu Oct 21 02:13:53 1993 Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 21 Oct 1993 06:16:29 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 21 Oct 1993 06:16:23 -0400 Message-Id: <199310211016.AA00664@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6178; Thu, 21 Oct 93 06:14:23 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 1111; Thu, 21 Oct 93 06:17:07 EDT Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 06:13:53 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: TECH: (attention Ivan!) demonstrative predicate cmavo needed? X-To: nsn@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: Actually, I've been arguing with myself whether we have in Lojban the inverse of "tu'a" - something that metonymizes a sumti out to a selbri, with the grammar of the latter. This may indeed be what "me" really is, but as defined, we tend to think of it as the inverse of "le". One would normally think that the result of an inverse to "tu'a" would be an abstraction, of the level of "su'u". But then how does an abstraction differ from a concrete in Lojban, once you hide the structure of the 'inside predication'. So I'm undecided whether this is covered or not by "me", and not going to argue for it since I obviously can't think of anythink like it in natlangs. I think we could use a ti/ta distinction; tu seems less important, but I would take it if there was support for all three. I don't know any languages with 3 way demonstrative distinction to know whether they have 3 way predicate demonstratives as well. lojbab