Message-Id: <MAILQUEUE2-102.931014021943.256@hylkn1.Helsinki.FI>
Date:         Wed, 13 Oct 1993 21:16:55 EDT
Reply-To: Jorge LLambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Sender: vilva
From: Jorge LLambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: TECH: Lean Lujvo and fat gismu
To: Veijo Vilva <VILVA@viikki21.helsinki.fi>
Content-Length: 842
Lines: 24

> 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.

I know you don't mean what that phrase says out of context, but I thought
I'd cite you just for fun :)

>  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.

It still seems to me that {claxu} can't mean "irrelevant". And I can't
read it as making some metacomment on the lujvo, as "take this gismu
without its x5 place". The "without" has to refer to whatever sumti fills
the place, not to the place itself within the place structure.


Jorge