From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Sun Jul 24 02:38:16 1994 Message-Id: <199407240638.AA07368@nfs1.digex.net> Date: Sun Jul 24 02:38:16 1994 Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: ciska bai tu'a zo bai X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier Status: RO 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