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 m0rEvZk-00007GC; Tue, 6 Dec 94 10:48 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8727; Tue, 06 Dec 94 10:48:57 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8726; Tue, 6 Dec 1994 10:48:57 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9977; Tue, 6 Dec 1994 09:45:40 +0100 Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 03:46:03 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: cmavo hit-list X-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1039 Lines: 25 >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 What is wrong with "mi tugni ri", or if you disagree "mi go'i na'ebo ri"? lojbab