From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Wed Jul  6 13:15:22 1994
Message-Id: <199407061715.AA15165@nfs2.digex.net>
Date: Wed Jul 6 13:15:22 1994
Reply-To: i.alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: i.alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk
Subject:      Re: Problem perhaps
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Status: RO

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'd even prefer something like

    li'o bau le la'e zo fa'u bangu ku [to'isa'a zo'o toi]

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 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.)

> ni'o
> On a slightly related point, I have not seen any comments regarding my
> discussions with Randall Holmes, nor have I been able to identify the
> "reflexive pronoun" that I thought we had added to Lojban.  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}.

---------------------------------------------------------------
la temci cu se pilno la rarna le nu fanta le nu co'ida rode fasnu
mi'e .i,n.