From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Thu Oct 21 05:34:16 1993 Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 21 Oct 1993 09:36:36 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 21 Oct 1993 09:36:31 -0400 Message-Id: <199310211336.AA03897@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6733; Thu, 21 Oct 93 09:34:30 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 2314; Thu, 21 Oct 93 09:36:37 EDT Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 09:34:16 -0400 Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: Event contours and ZAhO tcita X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: Veijo Vilva's message of Mon, 6 Sep 1993 01:25:36 -0400 Status: RO X-Status: >Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1993 01:25:36 -0400 >From: Veijo Vilva >X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu > It isn't a question of adding a sumti place but inserting > sumti into a place which just has been made visible >> Compare: >> >> __mi dunda le cakla do__ >> I give you the chocolate. >> and >> __mi dunda le cakla do bai le mi mamta__ >> I give you the chocolate compelled by my mother. >here the original ought to read > __mi dunda le cakla do [bai] zo'e__ >because all the sumti places are there even if they are not >expressed in the definition of "dunda". The question of coersion >is left open in the definition but the possibility is not excluded >-- a "bai noda" is required if we are to state explicitly that >there is no coersion involved. >The "bai" is just like another FA which makes it possible to >fill one of the uncountably large number of potential sumti >places -- which could have been retained in the definition >had we considered them important enough -- without specifying >all the intervening ones. This proposal has been made before, long ago, and I still don't buy it (assuming you mean what I think you do, that all BAI places are really somehow implicitly there in every bridi). I mean, consider {mi cadzu le loldi le tuple}. Any notions what fills the {fi'o cakla} place which you claim is there? Where's the chocolate? It doesn't seem to work for me to say that all those aleph-null places (every possible selbri has at least one BAI-equivalent {fi'o} clause) are present in every bridi. Then again, I have to admit to not following this discussion terribly carefully, so I'm probably coming out of left field here. ~mark