From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Tue Jul 12 12:32:57 1994
Message-Id: <199407121632.AA21333@nfs1.digex.net>
Date: Tue Jul 12 12:32:57 1994
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: a simple question...
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Status: RO

la lojbab cusku di'e

> > le karce cu bevri le dasni be le [] mapku le zarci
> > The car carries the wearer of the hat to the store.
>
> At location [],

> no'a = dasni
> no'axire = bevri
>
> This is not exactly the most tested feature of the language, so arguments
> for change can be considered (though we better hurry %^).


You say that in {le dasni be le mapku pe le no'a}, no'a = dasni.

What about in {le dasni be le mapku be le no'a} ?

Is no'a = mapku here? Because that's the next outer selbri in this case.
In the {pe} case, {pe} attaches to a closed sumti, but in the {be} case, {be}
goes with the selbri. This explains why {le kansa be le le no'a speni} is
the accompanier of their spouse, and {le catra be le no'a} is the killer
of themselves.

Couldn't we have {vo'a}, {vo'e}, etc to be {le no'a}, {le se no'a}, etc?
This would make reflexives easy:

        le catra be vo'a
        the killer of him/herself

>
> lojbab
>

Jorge