Message-Id: <m0qLOmp-000021C@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Wed, 6 Jul 1994 00:38:17 -0400
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: Problem perhaps
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 2212
Lines: 50

Discussing with Nora tonite, she isn't sure whether the termset version
of respectively should work the same as I intended.  As applied to
the "spuda" question, the form (now that I have checked) is:

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.

Nora notes that the one example she has seen of "fa'u" in John Cowan's papers
(of which she hasn't look at every one) works a little differently,a nd
with considerably more semantic leeway.

(that example works only within a single sumti and presumes that at least
one of the two distributed sets is explicitly enumerated,as in

la djan fa'u le maik,l cu kansa levo'a speni
John and Michael accompany their (reeespective) spouses.

The one explicit fa'u-joining implies that there is some other, not
vnecessarily explicit correspondence, that is similarly distributed.
But this doesn't work when none of the sets is explciitly enumerated such
that a "fa'u" can be used to join the elements.

I suggest that the termset fa'u should also work, if only because I can't
think of a better interpretation for the construct (which is legal) than the
one we want to express here.  But this may not be quite the same semantics
as John's example in his paper.

Nora feels that we should have an operator in LAhE, to go along with
lu'a/lu'i/lu'o cinverters, which would exlicitly treat the sumti inside as
distributed indivduals.  I could accept this argument if there is agreement.


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"
ri would refer to the last COMPLETE sumti before the current one
ke'a would/could refer outside the relative clause in which this sumti might
   be found

If we don't have a solution, I will propose that we add such a pronoun to
KOhA.

lojbab