Message-Id: <m0qbKO1-00004xC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Thu, 18 Aug 1994 20:13:00 -0700
Reply-To:     Gerald Koenig <jlk@NETCOM.COM>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Gerald Koenig <jlk@NETCOM.COM>
Subject:      Re: xruti
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 2931
Lines: 75

Jim Carter writes:


Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU> writes:
> A plea to remove another place: the x1 of xruti.

Presently: xruti xru x1 (agent) returns x2 to origin/earlier state x3 from x4
To be:     xruti xru x1 returns to origin/earlier state x2 from x3

> I think that the concept "x1 is back in state x2" is important enough, and
> {se'ixru} doesn't really mean this, while {xrugau} would be exactly the same
> that {xruti} is now.

                -- jimc

Nick writes; quoting lojbab:


=Now the question becomes whether a -gau lujvo adds an agent while preserving
=the focus on the x1 place.  I find this doubtful.

I agree with Jorge that I don't get you on this:

Under the new proposal, mi xruti leka vipsi: I revert to being second in
command.
do xrugau mi leka vipsi: you demote me.
--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Nick Nicholas. Linguistics, University of Melbourne.   nsn@krang.vis.mu.oz.au
        nsn@mundil.cs.mu.oz.au      nick_nicholas@muwayf.unimelb.edu.au
            AND MOVING SOON TO: nnich@speech.language.unimelb.edu.au


        I really can't vote on the xruti redefinition  since I just read
Nick's great lujvo paper last night for the first time.  But I do have
some observations.
        I see the xruti definitions like this:

Present definition:

reinstate(Agent, Object/state, Earlier_state, Later_state).

Proposed definition:

reinstate(Object/state, Earlier_state, Later_state).

Just putting the definitions into prolog clausal form. So:
mi *xruti leka vipsi       goes to:
reinstate(me, an earlier assistant state, Later_state).
This agrees with Nick's translation, loosely, "I revert to being second
in command."  Although I don't see the "second" anywhere in the
definitions.  I read it as " I am reinstated to my previous post of
assistant."

If I read it right last night, *xrugau has X1 from gasnu and X(n) from
*xruti.  So prologizing it yields:
*xrugau(Agent, Object/state, Earlier_state, Later_state). So
do *xrugau mi leka vipsi     goes to:
reinstate_do(you, me, an_earlier_assistant_state, Later_state).
I disagree with NIck' translation, "You demote me".
        My problem is that I don't see that this rendering which I
believe to be correct demoted Nick. He could as well have been promoted.
All it says is that he re_occupies a position that he previously held.
I read it as  " You reinstate me to my previous post of assistant."
        Here is Webster for reinstate, which I believe exactly defines
xruti.
        vt. To place again, (as in possession or in a former position).
2. To restore to a previous effective state.

        On another note, I can't find the parser, which I would like to
use to check my grammar. I completely agree that a contribution should
be made by downloaders, but where exactly is it?
_________________________________________________________________________
djer    jlk@netcom.com