Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 12:33:34 -0400
From: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Subject: Re: {soi}
In-reply-to: <199509210745.DAA19355@locke.ccil.org> from <ucleaar@Sep>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Message-id: <01HVJRURTS5U000XGH@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1333
Lines: 37

la .and. cusku di'e
 
> How does {soi} work?
 
The syntax is "soi <sumti-reference-1> <sumti-reference-2> [se'u]", where
the sumti-references are typically, but not necessarily, pro-sumti of
the vo'a-series or the ri-series.  It has the grammar of a free modifier
(vocative, subscript, or the like) and asserts that the bridi in which
the referenced sumti appear is also true if the referenced sumti are
made to occupy each other's places.  The meaning is undefined if the
referenced sumti are in different bridi.
 
If <sumti-reference-2> is omitted, it is understood to be a reference
to the immediately preceding sumti.
 
Examples:
 
        la djim. prami la .alis. soi vo'a vo'e
        Jim loves Alice [reciprocally] [1st-place sumti] [2nd-place sumti]
        Jim loves Alice and vice versa.
 
        la djim. prami la .alis. soi ra
        Jim loves Alice [reciprocally] [recent-not-last sumti]
 
Note that
 
        la djim. prami la .alis. soi dy.
        Jim loves Alice [reciprocally] [reference to "la djim."].
 
is technically bad (although probably interpretable) because "dy." corefers
to Jim himself, just as "la djim." does, whereas "ri" refers directly to
"la djim." and only indirectly to Jim himself.
 
--
John Cowan                                      cowan@ccil.org
                e'osai ko sarji la lojban.