Message-Id: <m0pWm65-0000PhC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Wed, 16 Feb 1994 13:12:02 GMT
Reply-To:     Colin Fine <C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Colin Fine <C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: Place structures with {co}
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1081
Lines: 29

To answer Jorge:

While your argument over following places has some merit, I don't think
it is compelling.
First, the argument from the parse is inconclusive - it treats the
selbri as a unit.
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.

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.


        Colin