Return-Path: <@segate.sunet.se:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from segate.sunet.se by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0soTlG-0000ZKC; Fri, 1 Sep 95 13:55 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from segate.sunet.se by segate.sunet.se (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id B65AC8DE ; Fri, 1 Sep 1995 12:55:43 +0200 Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 13:45:11 +0300 Reply-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Sender: Lojban list From: Veijo Vilva Subject: Re: Names X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1643 Lines: 54 >Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 22:35:05 +0100 >From: ucleaar >Subject: Re: Names X>> But there is a way to make a real predicate out of a name, X>> using {zei}: X>> mi cu zei xorxes A> A> I hope this works - I agree {me} & {du} are no good. Can one A> say {lo cu zei xorxes} or {lo zei xorxes}? If so, then neat A> idea! Both forms are accepted by the parser. The meanings are quite different, however, as absorbs the preceding word which means that isn't a descriptor at all but a brivla! The components glued together with can be any words what so ever and cannot have a syntactical meaning as the parser doesn't see the components. I don't especially like using as the first component because it is all too easy to write bridi which don't parse as expected. There is one cmavo, namely , which carries no syntactical meaning and very little semantical meaning. Concatenating it with would give mi yzei veion lo yzei veion The BAI would give mi me'ezei veion lo me'ezei veion which is similar to the sumti tcita . Another possibility would be to put the name first, e.g. mi veion zeime'e lo veion zeime'e A two-part name using as glue requires no additives! mi veion zei vilvan lo veion zei vilvan NB. works with simple words only so no quoted stuff can be used. co'o mi'e veion --------------------------------- .i mi du la'o sy. Veijo Vilva sy. ---------------------------------