From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Mon Dec 5 20:44:03 1994 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs2.digex.net with SMTP id AA08563 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Mon, 5 Dec 1994 20:43:58 -0500 Message-Id: <199412060143.AA08563@nfs2.digex.net> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6636; Mon, 05 Dec 94 20:32:42 EST Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6314; Mon, 5 Dec 1994 18:04:43 -0500 Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 18:03:11 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: cmavo hit-list To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Status: RO la djan cusku di'e > > For example, if someone says {mi jinvi le du'u ba carvi}, then is > > {mi tugni la'e di'u} a good response? Am I agreeing that it will rain, > > or that the first speaker thinks so? > > The latter, alas. But you can say "mi go'i" instead (or "mi go'ira'o" in > more complex cases where the speaker appears at both levels of abstraction. Yes, or I could just say "ie". But sometimes it's necessary to refer to a part of a bridi. If I wanted to respond "do you think that is good or bad?", I couldn't use {la'e di'u} for "that". Since {di'u} is vague anyway, it doesn't refer to the last bridi, but the last "utterance", I think it would be better to allow partial things like "le du'u ba carvi" to be possible referents of {la'e di'u}. I don't think that introduces much more vagueness than what di'u already has, and makes it easier to say things like "this" or "that" when referring to utterances. Jorge