From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Sun Feb  5 13:38:56 1995
Message-Id: <199502051838.AA17098@nfs2.digex.net>
Date: Sun Feb 5 13:38:56 1995
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: replies re. ka & mamta be ma

la and cusku di'e

> > > > > Surely not most members of, say SE, LE, PA?
> >                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > i pau so'e cmima ji lei so'e cmima
>
> I don't understand the question.

Most members taken individually or all of them at the same time?

> > i zo ni'o ka'e basti zo i
>
> Iff there's a new topic.

i go'i  i ku'i noda javni le du'u makau cnino selsnu
i di'e drata tadji le nu rivbi tu'a zo i
i mi xusra le du'u broda e le du'u brode e le du'u brodi
e le du'u brodo li'o

> > i <<lu le jufra poi mi ca cusku ke'a li'u>> ka'e basti zo dei
>
> They're not equivalent in meaning, I think, because (and I
> may be wrong here) the expressing is located at a region of
> time that includes the punctual present, but the expressing
> needn't be located exactly at the punctual present.

i ko pilno lu le jufra poi mi ca co'a cusku ke'a li'u

> The meanings of {mi} and {ca} have to be defined in terms of
> {dei}, so the circumlocution doesn't show {dei} isn't basic.

i xu do jinvi le du'u ro cmavo ka'e se skicu sepi'o loi drata cmavo
i go'i inaja no cmavo cu traji se nitcu

> > i zo do'e joi zo poi ka'e basti zo fi'o
>
> How would that work? (E.g. if a selbri has 3 fiho modals)

i <<lu do'e da poi broda ku'o do'e de poi brode ku'o do'e di poi brodi
li'u>> cu basti <<lu fi'o broda da fi'o brode de fi'o brodi di li'u>>

> > i zo ca'e joi zo du ka'e basti zo goi
>
> Maybe I'd misunderstood {goi}. I thought {X goi Y}
> assigns the referent of X to Y, replacing any previous
> referent Y previously had.

Or the referent of Y to X, depending which is the assignable variable.
To avoid the use of {goi}, you can simply use a lujvo meaning "assign",
or you can avoid pronouns altogether, which are nothing but convenient
optional add-ons anyway ;)

i oi dukse nandu fa le nu cusku di'u bau la lojban

> I wonder if you genuinely misunderstand me. If we have 2 ways
> of saying the same thing, only one of them is motivated by
> requirements of expressiveness.

i pe'i zasti fa re tadji na.e ki'o tadji be le nu cusku roda
i le ma tadji cu ckaji le ka jicmu

> It may be that (and this is
> true of SE/LE vs NOI) that neither is plainly more basic than
> the other, but one of them is redundant.

i ienai
i tu'a le remoi ka'e se rivbi sepi'o loi clani jufra
i mu'a <<lu lo mlatu cu kalte lo smacu li'u>> ka'e se basti
<<lu ko'a mlatu i ko'e smacu i ko'a kalte ko'e li'u>>
i mi na pilno zo lo a zo poi
i ku'i le remoi cu mutce selplixau

co'o mi'e xorxes