Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 14 Oct 1993 14:30:44 -0400
Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 14 Oct 1993 14:30:11 -0400
Message-Id: <199310141830.AA18617@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)    with BSMTP id 0423; Thu, 14 Oct 93 14:28:16 EDT
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with  BSMTP id 0603; Thu, 14 Oct 93 14:31:09 EDT
Date:         Thu, 14 Oct 1993 14:27:01 -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: more on fat gismu
X-To:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
X-Cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
Status: RO
X-Status: 
X-From-Space-Date: Thu Oct 14 10:27:01 1993
X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET

I will accept your argument on sorcu, though I'm not really convinced.
I am also deleting the x4 of cikre.  I had something specific in mind there
but I suspect that it meets the same argument as this one.  There are indeed
two different semantic roles, I am sure, but whether in practice you have
situatuions where a distinction is necessary that cannot be conveyed within
one sumti is a little harder to argue.

I am inclined to make muvdu non-agentive, per your suggestion (it had already
occured to me), but want to consider further.

lojbab