Message-Id: <m0qLAZI-000021C@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 5 Jul 1994 11:10:26 +0100
Reply-To:     Matthew Faupel <matthew@CPD.NTC.NOKIA.COM>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Matthew Faupel <matthew@CPD.NTC.NOKIA.COM>
Subject:      Re: Problem perhaps
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
In-Reply-To:  <199407050630.JAA03476@nokia.com> (message from Logical Language
              Group on Tue, 5 Jul 1994 02:26:32 -0400)
Content-Length: 2363
Lines: 59

MF: 1.  {talsa} is explicitly given as needing a person as x1, with suggestio
MF:     for other gismu if x1 is a situation or what-have-you.  Can you see a
MF:     reason for this?

BL: The intent is an agentive challenge, for example as in a guard saying
BL: "who goes there?" or perhaps the glove to the face of a challenge to a
BL: duel.  There is intent involved, and thus there must be an
BL: intender/agent.

BL: Something that is "challenging" that is not an agent, is generally more
BL: of a hindrance/obstruction, or is a "difficulty" (nandu).

BL: If there is some context that I am missing here that suggests a
BL: different type of challenge than difficulty or hindrance, please explain
BL: further.

There isn't exactly a different sort of challenge that you've missed, it's
just my warped perception of the world :-)  What I was trying to say was
that a message in a foreign language acts as a challenge to me to reply
similarly, i.e. the message itself (and crucially, not the sender) is
issuing me a challenge... It's coming up to me, slapping me round the face
and saying "Hah! I bet you can't deal with me!"  This was why I decided to
use {talsa} even though the gismu list restricts it to people.

MF: 2.  The second sentence is attempting to say that I want to reply to all
MF:     messages in the language in which they were written

BL: We have a way to make this explicit:

BL: mi spuda ro notci bau le bangu pe pa'a

BL: where pa'a is the respectively modal operator.
BL: It isn;t cleasr to me whether one would want to write more explicitly

BL: bau le ri spuda pe pa'a
BL: or
BL: bau le spuda pe pa'a ri

This is a neat construction - unfortunately the only reference to this use
of {pa'a} that I can find is in the latest cmavo list, which just gives:

 pa'aku ...
 explicitly marks respective use as in "THEY read THEIR (respective) books"

Where did this usage come from?  Since the reference grammar doesn't explain
it, could you do so in a bit more detail (and perhaps incorporate the
explanation into the reference grammar).

BL: There is also a 'respectively' connective, that could be used in a termset,
BL: but I am not much good at remembering termset cmavo and grammar, since they
BL: come up so seldom.

This is in the reference grammar, but it's not really what I needed for what
I was trying to express.

Cheers,


Matthew