Message-Id: <199407062255.AA25324@nfs1.digex.net> Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Date: Wed Jul 6 18:55:31 1994 Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: Problem perhaps X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Wed Jul 6 18:55:31 1994 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU la i,n cusku di'e > cu'u la lojbab. > > mi spuda nu'i ro notci nu'ufa'u bau leri bangu > > > with the intent that the non-logical connective "fa'u" will distribute > > the proper bangu to each of the notci. > > I can't say I like this much. I can say I don't like it any. I'm surprized that an untagged sumti can be connected (using fa'u in this case) with a BAI tagged sumti. I can't think of a case where this would make sense. > I'd even prefer something like > > li'o bau le la'e zo fa'u bangu ku [to'isa'a zo'o toi] a'unaicai i ko basna zo zo'o > I think the sumti joined by the {fa'u} should be similar, as in the > Cowan example you quote > > > la djan fa'u le maik,l cu kansa levo'a speni > > John and Michael accompany their (reeespective) spouses. I agree. Here's another Cowan example (connectives paper): 14.12) la djeimyz. fa'u la djordj. prami la meris. fa'u la martas. James jointly-in-order-with George loves Mary jointly-in-order-with Martha. James and George love Mary and Martha, respectively. And it doesn't always have to be sumti joined by {fa'u}, for instance one could have: mi fa'u do pu fa'u ba klama le zarci meaning that I went and you will go to the market. But whatever two things are joined by {fa'u}, they have to be playing the same role. > (I seem to remember something similar-but-different coming up a while back, > something about I-in-English and you-in-Lojban discuss something-or-other. > I must try and dig it out and see if it helps.) From the connectives paper: 15.7) nu'i mi bau la lojban. nu'u joi do bau la gliban. nu'u casnu ( I in-language Lojban massed-with you in-language English ) discuss. > > ni'o > > On a slightly related point, I have not seen any comments regarding my > > discussions with Randall Holmes, I started writing a reply, but got so mixed up between the Lojban and the Loglan that I gave up. > > nor have I been able to identify the > > "reflexive pronoun" that I thought we had added to Lojban. The VOhA series is the closest I can think of as a reflexive. > > Was there any > > feelings regarding how we should treat reflexivity in Lojban (as I satted in > > stated in my earlier posting, "ke'a" and "ri" do not work in a sumti such > > as "le kansa be le ??? speni" > > "the accompanier of (his) spouse" > > I think we agreed that {no'a} could refer back to the "enclosing" selbri > in cases like this (not just a bridi as the 6/94 cmavo list says), > which would give you {le kansa be le leno'a speni}. I think there's a problem there. In this case {no'a} is jumping up two levels: {speni} would be the first selbri up, and {kansa} the second. Is {le catra be le no'a} the killer of him/herself? Besides, how far up do the VOhA go? mi catlu le catra be vo'a Is that "I look at the killer of me" or "I look at the killer of themselves"? I think the VOhAs should refer to the closest selbri up, then we'd have our reflexive there, but I suspect they refer to something else. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > la temci cu se pilno la rarna le nu fanta le nu co'ida rode fasnu i ry pilno la canlu le nu fanta le nu fe'eco'ida rode fasnu > mi'e .i,n. > mi'e xorxes