Message-Id: <199310141852.AA19791@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date:         Thu, 14 Oct 1993 14:47:43 -0400
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: TECH: Lean Lujvo and fat gismu
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
Status: RO

from lojbab

John says
LL> Consider the notion that "don-" always means that "do" is in the x1
LL> place, and we must say "terdon-" to put "do" in the x3 place.  Then
LL> the natural "mibykulnu" above must be "selmibykulnu", and we have no
LL> natural way to construct a lujvo with place structure "x1 is the gift
LL> you give to x2".

But I, not having subscribed to the conventions of Nick's paper (which I
assume this represents) do not see such regularity in the use of KOhA
in lujvo.  When I coined mibykulnu (which I'm sure I did) I analyzed it
as a perversion of "le mi kulnu", and thus am not limited to thinking
about cases where the KOhA fits in the place structure of the selbri.

Thus I might also say "dongerku", and I am not saying  anything about
you being either a dog or a species of dog %^).

The point being that how we treat lujvo based on some arbitrary cmavo
(and for my mind brivla) as a term need NOT be determined by what is
done for other cmavo and brivla.  Sure, such are to be considered for the
benefits of consistency.  But I refuse to be bound by constraints like
this this early in the language.  And if I can think of a new avenue of
lujvo-making that breaks the existing molds and performs a useful function,
I want to be able to use it.

I have therefore suggested that we can use zi'o/-zil- instead of -cau-
where some have said I was misusing the latter to show a place deletion.
This entails using -zil- as if it were a tanru component that deletes based
on the modifier (which makes it look like a UI, but also like any other
tanru).  This then suggests that it can occur after a SE _rafsi_ to indicate
deletion of that sumti from the whole.  This is indeed a difference from
any conventions we discussed on the phone (my recollection being that we
were not happy with any convention and that we were going to toss the thing
out as a strawman and see what saluted - and I'm inclined not to salute
at this point since no one ever seemed to like it).

I want to consider lujvo making based on all cmavo, and maybe some gismu as
not being subject to conventions and rules that are too narrowly considered.
That is why I want to see a table in Nick's paper showing how he proposes
using each of the cmavo with rafsi.  I HOPE tyhis won't mean classing all of
them in one category like it seems you intended for KOhA-based rafsi.  That
is even more restrictive than the 5 or 6 ways one can consider for interpreting
selbri terms used in lujvo according to his paper.

lojbab