Message-Id: <MAILQUEUE2-102.931013123729.288@hylkn1.Helsinki.FI>
Date:         Wed, 13 Oct 1993 06:36:04 -0400
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: vilva
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: TECH: Lean Lujvo and fat gismu
To: Veijo Vilva <VILVA@viikki21.helsinki.fi>
Content-Length: 1312
Lines: 32

JL> > As I said in another message, I remove places from a lujvo by declari
JL> > irrelevant, generall using "claxu" after a semantic expression of the
JL> > to be eliminated.
JL> >
JL> > lojbab
JL>
JL> I'm not sure if I understand. Do you mean:
JL>
JL> xelklacau (xe klama claxu)  c1=k1 (c2=k5) k2 k3 k4
JL>
JL> x1 goes to x2 from x3 along x4 without any means/vehicle
JL>
JL> It works, but this doesn't make it irrelevant. It emphasises that
JL> there are no means/vehicle.

No.  lujvo mean what I want them to mean.   If my concept is one of irrelevancy,
I have used "cau".  There is indeed a second interpretation, as you have
pointed out, but that may not be what I intended.

Now, given the formulaic convention, replace "cau" above with "zi'o" and you
have a convention that no longer has 2 interpretations.  This solves the
problem and gives a much friendlier use for zi'o than bare places.  But then,
this causes me to re-examoine my opposition to using zi'o directly on the
converter, and I now chnage my mind and decide I like "selzi'oklama" better
since it puts the focus of the deletion on the term being deleted.

What the place structure of selzi'oklama?  Since the zi'o is joined to the
"sel" first, it is deleted and klama is not converted, so x1 is kl1, x2 is kl3
x3 is kl4, x4 is kl5.

lojbab