Message-Id: <199408021839.AA05122@nfs1.digex.net>
Date:         Tue, 2 Aug 1994 13:59:22 EDT
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: current cmene project
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Status: RO

la lojbab cusku di'e

> JL> Isn't it better to
> JL> assume that the place structure of a fu'ivla of this type is given by the
> JL> place structure of the leading gismu?
>
> The classifier word is that - a classifier.  With names of cities, you could
> indeed do this, but "cmacr-" on mathematical terms should not give you the
> place structure of cmacu.

I was thinking of things like foods, animals, plants, etc, where a structure
like "pertains to" doesn't make that much sense. What mathematical terms start
with "cmacr-"? From what language were they borrowed? Mathematical texts will
look very funny if every third word begins with "cmacr-".

> My reasoning is based on my "types of fu'ivla"
>
> If a name is a type-1 fu'ivla, then turning it into a brivla using "me"
> gets you the "pertains to ... in aspect ...
> Likewise if it is a type 2 (a Lojbanized name)

Likewise with any name. This is also true with {me le tcadrbeidjinu}. But
this has to do with the meaning of {me}, not of the fu'ivla.

> So the default for type 3 would also seem to be the same, though we can
> establish conventions for particular classifiers.

I'd prefer to see examples. I don't think that "pertains to" is such a good
default for place structures of type three fu'ivla. {me la} is probably
more zipfean to get the same effect.

Jorge