From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Thu Sep 15 14:06:02 1994 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA11260 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Thu, 15 Sep 1994 14:05:58 -0400 Message-Id: <199409151805.AA11260@nfs1.digex.net> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1506; Thu, 15 Sep 94 14:07:27 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6380; Thu, 15 Sep 1994 12:40:19 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 12:39:27 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: do djica loi ckafi je'i tcati To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Status: RO la djer cusku di'e > Well, here goes my try: > > i. mi nitcu le su'u me le tanxe me'u da kei > > What this means to me is: I need the (in-mind) abstraction of boxing > up (something that exists). If you don't want to make "things" existent > you could use zo'e in place of da. If su'u is too nonspecific you could > use ka or nu as you suggested. > > I still have a lot of doubt as to what "me" actually does. By definition > it turns a sumti (here, le tanxe) into a selbri. But what exactly the > x1 and x2 of the resulting selbri are is unclear to me. It is not terribly clear to me either, but {me} doesn't turn "the box" into "to box". This is the definition of {me} from the cmavo list: "x1 is specific to [sumti] in aspect x2" For the verb "to box", you would probably want something like {taxpu'i} (tanxe punji). > In English when > a noun is turned into a verb by the subtraction of an -er suffix, i.e. > "goer--> go", any ordinary subject or object can be used. Is x1 of "me > le tanxe" a person or machine that boxes things, and is x2 a place for > anything boxed? In other words, can any appropriate items be used for > the sumti of a selbri created by me conversion? I don't think so. You could stretch it to say that someone that boxes things is specific to a box, but the aspect x2 could never be the thing being boxed. Jorge