Date: Mon, 06 Feb 1995 22:26:58 +0000
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: jorne
In-reply-to: (Your message of Sun, 05 Feb 95 12:34:45 EST.)
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Message-id: <01HMQZXZ585Y002NTR@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-Length: 2456
Lines: 61

Jorge:
> > > i pe'i au lo me zo zi'o selbri cu selplixau nagi'a dunli
> > > lo na'e me zo zi'o selbri
> > Which means {ziho} is never appropriate?
> i pe'i go'i
> i ki'ubo rinka le nu jundi da poi da'i na zasti
> i si'a tu'a lo me zo se cmavo cu judri'a ra
 
I don't know how {bo} works. I think I get the point though.
I think one of the reasons I originally supported it was that
I suspected that when people use gismu they don't check that
it is appropriate for zohe to fill all otherwise unfilled
sumti places. I hoped that scrupulous use of ziho by some
people might shake things up a bit. In fact, setting aside the
matter of resulting tanruey vagueness, filling empty places by
ziho rather than by zohe might actually be a better guarantee
against saying what one hadn't intended to.
All that said, I largely agree with you.
 
However, I still hope that were I to forsake English for Lojban for more than
 the extremely occasional utterance I
would use ziho. My personal case for this is
 
  lanci
  x1 is a flag/banner/standard of/symbolizing x2 with
  pattern(s) x3 on material x4
 
I set aside virtual flags made of no material, or
transparent flags with no pattern, which are improbable
circumstances. It is the x2 that bugs me. I don't think
it shouldn't be there, for by it we may speak of the
flag of France, and so on. But it irks me that a flag
that isn't the flag of anything isn't a lanci. I feel
it has a right to be a lanci, and if it can't be then
at least it can be a lanci fe ziho.
 
It occurs to me that I may have hit upon an atypically
compelling case for ziho. Perhaps {lanci} shouldn't
have its x2, and "flag of" shd be {snilanci}. But possibly-bad
place structures will be baselined & won't go away.
 
> > A favoured example
> > when {ziho} was proposed was {klama fo ziho} for teleportation
> > (which I think is like what jeff Goldblum used in The Fly).
> i pe'i zo klama cu plana gismu
> i mi mutce neirmau lu klama fo zi'o fu zi'o li'u
 
Me too. Incidentally, I think {zmanei}, used recently, I
noticed, by both me & Iain, is better than {neirmau}, since
you basically want the place structure of nelci rather than
zmadu, & dikyjvo/jvajvo rules say the last rafsi is primary
determinant of place structure. I think.
 
> i ku'i zo klama ca'a ponse mu tersumti
> i seki'ubo mi na pilno zo klama tu'a zoi gy teleportation li'u
> i cumki fa le nu pilno zo benji
 
Lahe lu klama fo ziho fu ziho lihu 3 tersumti ponse.
 
---
And