Message-Id: <199412160457.AA05739@nfs1.digex.net>
Date:         Thu, 15 Dec 1994 19:06:52 -0800
Reply-To: Gerald Koenig <jlk@NETCOM.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Gerald Koenig <jlk@NETCOM.COM>
Subject:      Re: kau obverse
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Status: RO

>
>la djer cusku di'e
>
>> I might add that if xa'a were accepted, we could say:
>> .i mi djuno xa'a dakau klama le zarci.
>
>That would be ungrammatical, you have two selbri in the sentence.

djer:
        As you said when I first proposed xa'a, it would probably be
        classed as a LE. I responded that it was broader than that, in
        that it converts a sumti place to receive a LE; but then of
        course you want to put a LE into the place. Xa'a converts selbri
        just as LE do.

        mi djuno LE da kau klama le zarci

        pleases the parser which sees {da kau klama le zarci} as one
        sumti. Xa'a would just substitute for the LE.
        Xa'a would function as a LE as well as legitimizing the
        placement of a LE in a NU slot.

>Probably you want {poi klama le zarci}, but you wouldn't need the {kau}.
djer:
        I definitely want the kau if it means "who".  It restricts the
        (x),da, to persons. In one way this reminds me of the "any"
        discussion.  If "any" is represented as a bare x or da on
        translation into lojban, it loses something, namely its
        casualness of selection and its oneness.  In the same way dakau
        carries the meaning of some x *who* (a person) ; if I understand
        the example in the definition. Without the kau it could be a
        car that went to the market.

        To me, when I pick up a bare selbri , the associations that
        cling to it from the unfilled sumti places are still attached.
        So even if two selbri have identical definitions in x1 and x2,
        but different ones for x3, and the x3s are unexpressed for each;
        the feeling, the meaning if you will; is not the same. The
        careful use of xa'a preserves most of the meaning of a selbri
        that is defined in some places for an abstraction.


        djuno  (know)           slabu (familiar)
        x2 facts                x2 observer
        x3 subject              x3 feature
        x4 epistomology         x4 standard

        Alas, poor Yorik, I knew him well.
xorxes: uu la iorik .i mi ri selsau
djer:   uu la iorik .i mi rai ri pa selsku
        Alas, poor Yorik, I was an extreme familiar-observer of him.

djer:   uu la iorik .i mi rai pa djuno fi *xa'a ru
        Alas, poor Yorik, I was an extreme knower of him.

        Parser approves. But there is a difference between the
        djuno-xa'a version and the slabu version. The slabu version is
        not what I want to say.

        I said I rested my case on xa'a, the language shifter cmavo.
        It now appears to me that in spite of my efforts it is not
        understood, and may even have made the infamous xorxes hit
        list.  I believe it would enrich and clarify parts of the
        language with minimal disruption of its structure.  Sometimes
        it is difficult for me to realize that I may be alone in this
        conviction.  On the other hand, I realize that if xorxe didn't
        raise the questions he has, I wouldn't even have thought about
        xe'e of it. Unless asked, I again rest my case.


>> xa'a would allow x2 djuno to accept an object/person. x3 and x4 djuno
>> are left intact giving djuno a different definition than sanji. xa'a
>> would really add a lot of expressive power to the language as well as
>> allowing very natural (for E-speakers at least) expressions, such as
>> "Alas, poor Yorik, I knew *him* well".
djer:   It should be x3 djuno.
>uu la iorik  i mi ri selsau
>
>co'o mi'e xorxes
>