Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #14) id m0pWp8M-0000PgC; Wed, 16 Feb 94 18:29 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3574; Wed, 16 Feb 94 18:27:23 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 3573; Wed, 16 Feb 1994 18:27:23 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5980; Wed, 16 Feb 1994 17:26:26 +0100 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 11:26:38 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: Place structures with {co} X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1846 Lines: 55 la kolin di'e cusku > While your argument over following places has some merit, I don't think > it is compelling. The more I think about it, the more compelling it becomes to me, but I'm not going to insist if people are happy with the way things are now. > First, the argument from the parse is inconclusive - it treats the > selbri as a unit. Yes, I know that the parse doesn't tell the whole story. Let's strike that as a piece of evidence. > Secondly, the primary purpose of this construction is to bring the seltanru > to the end specifically to make its tergismu available. To use it simply > to invert the terms without seeking this effect would be a subtle > stylistic effect only, and not in my view sufficiently important > to provide specially. That's a reasonable statement. What I ask is then that the claims that lojban permits modificand-modifier order if the speaker so desires be dropped. But this is my best argument: > You furthermore say: > ++++++> > We need a convention for what {vo'a}, {vo'e}, etc. mean when used > in a bridi whose selbri is a co-type tanru. I vote for them to > refer to the tertanru places only, and not to the unmeritoriously :) > promoted places of the seltanru. > > Also, what are the places of {go'i} and co. when refering to that > bridi? I also think they should be only those of the tertanru. > >+++++ > > I don't agree. As I think is suggested by my argument above, I think these > gernybasti should take the entire selbri as it stands, and interpret the > tergismu accordingly. The problem is that the terbri of that selbri cannot be numbered in any reasonable way: daxipa daxire ... {broda co brode} dexire dexici ... vo'a = daxipa (x1 of broda) vo'e = daxire (x2 of broda) vo'i = daxici ... You never get to dexire, and who knows what happened to dexipa (the x1 of brode) Jorge