Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi  with smtp
	(Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0rBvZ3-00007EC; Mon, 28 Nov 94 04:11 EET
Message-Id: <m0rBvZ3-00007EC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 7342; Mon, 28 Nov 94 04:11:50 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 7338; Mon, 28 Nov 1994 04:11:50 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3474; Mon, 28 Nov 1994 03:08:36 +0100
Date:         Mon, 28 Nov 1994 02:10:09 +0000
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: lo + opaque
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Sun, 27 Nov 94 17:21:05 EST.)
Content-Length: 2650
Lines: 64

rge:
> And:
> > I support the "xehe" that pc proposes, but I think it would be useful
> > to have a complementary camvo, "xoho", say, that marks a sumti as
> > a NON-leaper. It would be an overt way of showing that we have not
> > inadvertently forgotten to insert a "xehe" or to use an initial
> > "da poi ... zohu".
>
> Surely xo'o should be xe'enai. But wait a minute, don't use xe'e for
> this new proposal, it is not the xe'e I proposed, so it should have
> another name, at least to keep the confusion at a manageable level.
> Let's say xa'a, if I may suggest one.

"xaha" and "xahanai". "xaha" = "leaper" (pc's term), "xahanai" =
"nonleaper".

I think that looks rather nice.

> > As far as I am aware, there are no other proposals still floating around
> > for opacity solutions, so comment can focus on "lohe", "xehe" [a la pc],
> > and "xoho".

Where "xehe" is now "xaha" and "xoho" is now "xahanai".

> Let's see if I understand correctly:
>         "I need a box"
> pc:     mi nitcu le nu lo tanxe cu co'e         (opaque)
>         mi nitcu tu'a lo tanxe                  (opaque)

And under my "xahanai" extension, "xahanai" could precede the "lo".

>         mi nitcu le nu xa'a lo tanxe cu co'e    (transparent)
>         mi nitcu tu'a xa'a lo tanxe             (transparent)
>         mi nitcu lo tanxe  [tu'a xa'a cancel each other] (transparent)

Right (if I understand pc's proposal).

> And:    mi nitcu le si'o lo tanxe cu co'e       (opaque)
>         mi nitcu tu'a lo tanxe                  (opaque)
>         mi nitcu le si'o xo'o lo tanxe cu co'e  (opaque)
>         mi nitcu tu'a xo'o lo tanxe             (opaque)
>         mi nitcu le si'o xa'a lo tanxe cu co'e  (transparent)
>         mi nitcu tu'a xa'a lo tanxe             (transparent)

Bang on. Except that (a) I would prefer "lo siho", since "le siho"
is nonveridical and can refer to anything (- don't object - that's
what the ruling was), (b) your suggestion of "xahanai" is nicer
than "xoho", and (c) this is not the place structure of the virtually
baselined gismu, so "nitcu" should be "siznitcu".

> Jorge:  mi nitcu lo'e tanxe                     (opaque)
>         mi nitcu xe'e lo tanxe                  (opaque)
>         mi nitcu le du'u lo tanxe cu co'e       (opaque)
>         mi nitcu tu'a lo tanxe                  (opaque)
>         mi nitcu lo tanxe                       (transparent)

I thought you'd dropped "xehe" in favour of "lohe".

I support all of the above, with the exception of your "xehe", which
I frown on, though it would do no harm to have it, and with the
reservation that "lohe" will sometimes not do the job required.

---
And