Return-Path: Received: from kantti.helsinki.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0rd1Dq-00001oC; Fri, 10 Feb 95 21:41 EET Received: from fiport.funet.fi (fiport.funet.fi [128.214.109.150]) by kantti.helsinki.fi (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id VAA20782 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 1995 21:41:41 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (MAILER@SEARN) by FIPORT.FUNET.FI (PMDF V4.3-13 #2494) id <01HMW9J03BCW003BJ3@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>; Fri, 10 Feb 1995 19:37:26 +0200 (EET) Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8940; Fri, 10 Feb 1995 20:38:09 +0100 Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 19:38:38 +0000 From: ucleaar Subject: Re: jorne In-reply-to: (Your message of Thu, 09 Feb 95 17:56:24 EST.) Sender: Lojban list To: Veijo Vilva Reply-to: ucleaar Message-id: <01HMW9J1651Y003BJ3@FIPORT.FUNET.FI> X-Envelope-to: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 788 Lines: 23 Jorge: > > > I have trouble imagining what {dunda} means if you > > > ziho out one of its places, for example. > > I can't think what {dunda fe ziho} or {dunda fi ziho} wd mean, but > > {dunda fa ziho} wd surely mean "receive". That actually seems to me > > like a relatively reasonable use of ziho. > Well, I don't know. In what context would {dunda fa zi'o} be better > than {dunda fa zo'e}? It doesn't seem to make much difference. Can someone receive without anyone having given? One difference between zohe and ziho is that nonspecific zohe interacts with the quantificational scope of other sumti. This wdn't happen with ziho. > Then you agree that {zi'o} wouldn't be better than zo'e as default? In general I agree. For, say, some sumti of klama I'm not sure. --- And