Message-Id: <m0qRxCX-000023C@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 23 Jul 1994 13:27:05 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: ciska bai tu'a zo bai
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 2441
Lines: 60

la nitcion cusku di'e

> Oh, pity ye the Nick, who is supposed to cough up a reading list on diachronic
> functionalism (cedra farvi ke terpli ciksi ke bauske) or grammaticalisation
> (gervlabi'o pruce) by the end of the month, and hasn't even started, never
> mind completing Hamlet in Klingon or polishing off the jvoste...

mi do kecti doi nitcion le nu do kafke bilga
i pau do ba kafke le tertcidu liste ma

[...]
> =slots that allow object/event, while others only allow one type, and I
> =don't see any rule being followed. For example, le se spuda and le se nelci
[...]

> There's a rule being followed somewhere in there, and in fact we had the
> discussion towards the end of last year (you were with us back then, yes?)

Yes, but I probably wasn't reading everything back then. I think this is
stored somewhere in the ftp, I'll have a look.

> There *are* predications where object/event does *not* imply sumti raising,
> but both object and event are legitimate arguments; the semantics of the
> predicates are like that.

Is there any way to tell which are those predications, other than divine
inspiration?  :)

> An excellent insight of the Lojban design team,
> not to read in raising everywhere. Personally, I'm irritated that simlu
> is not treated as raising, when "seem" is one of the examples of raising
> that keeps coming up in the textbooks, but never mind.

>From the definition, it looks like it is thus treated. There is actually
one separate gismu for each of the meanings:

simlu: x1 seems to have proprerty x2
simsa: x1 seems (is similar to) x2

(I now recall that in our irc conversation I used {gleki simsa} when I meant
{gleki simlu},  oh well)

But in general, how can you tell when an object is acceptable or not?
Why is {mi nelci do} acceptable, but {do pluka mi} illegal raising?

> I myself use jai obsessively (when I do use Lojban ;(

I think I have never used it, although I do use tu'a liberally. {jai} has
the advantage of beign a single syllable, maybe I should start using it.

> --- it did even pop up in my IRC the other week, and I hope I was being
> logged); but I remain to be convinced that it will take hold in the speech
> community.

The speech community uses it obsessively. From the telephone conversation
during Logfest, I'd say that for the moment you're the only member.
(I was very impressed, btw, I hope I can get to half that level of fluency,
that was a great incentive.)

Jorge