Message-Id: <199310210344.AA00707@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date:         Thu, 21 Oct 1993 13:42:50 +1000
Reply-To: Nick Nicholas <nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Nick Nicholas <nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU>
Subject:      Re: TECH: (attention Ivan!) demonstrative predicate cmavo needed?
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
In-Reply-To:  <199310201110.AA18131@access.digex.net> from "Logical Language               Group" at Oct 20, 93 07:10:57 am
Status: RO

To Logical Language Group respond I thus:

#"ta'i la'edi'u" does not work unless the way you want to reference was
#discussed in the last sentence.  I want to point to something and say "this
#way" i.e. "ta'i ti".  But I also want to be able to use a predicate OTHER
#than with "ta'i", as for example in a tanru.  Nora's best solution was
#"simsa be ta", and John came up with "me ta" as did I, but the latter suggests
#"ta" is a sumti, and the former is ambiguous as to whether "ta" is a thing
#or a relationship.

If we're to get a bridi equivalent of {ta}, we may well end up "needing" one
for {ti} and {tu} as well, which I think is overkill --- particuarly as I'm
not convinced we really need it in the first place. If {me ta} is too
sumti-biased, {me tu'a ta} is less so --- in fact, it will weigh heavily
in the direction of relationship rather than object.

"Kai` sa`n swqh~kan t'akriba` piota`,           N N O  nsn@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au
 kai` sa`n plhsi'aze pia` [h [w'ra te'sseres,   I I L  IRC:nicxjo RL:shaddupnic
 sto`n e'rwta doqh~kan eutuxei~s."              C C A  University of Melbourne.
  K.P.Kaba'fhs, _Du'o Ne'oi, 23 E'ws 24 Etw~n_  K H S  *Ceci n'est pas un .sig*