Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tJQMN-0000ZUC; Sat, 25 Nov 95 21:34 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id D27BD46D ; Sat, 25 Nov 1995 20:34:03 +0100 Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 12:28:01 -0700 Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: self-descriptions? To: lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Content-Length: 2710 Lines: 62 >[Lojbab: >> Fine, use brivla. Tenses apply to whole bridi. And: >This is a pretty ugly solution: {citno bao kei bao ralju}, or >{citno me kei bao ralju}, or {citno zio kei bao ralju} - they're >all ugly. Semantically, ZAhO works quasitanruishly, like NAhE, >so I think it oughtn't to apply to whole bridi.] Are those even grammatical? I think he meant something like {selfanmo citno ke ralju} and {selfanmo ke citno ralju}. Well, {fanmo} may not be quite right, but something like that. Or you ought to be able to use zei: {citno ba'o zei ralju} or {ba'o zei citno ralju}. >(c) V-final is quite common among languages. In Japanese, for instance, >you get the equivalent of fa-fe-fi sumti in any order, plus final selbri. >I'm amazed that Japanese people can manage to speak it, but speak it >they do. I have no argument with V-final; it's zabnalglico. I do think there's a slight bias against it in Lojban because it'll more often require the use of {kei}. But {kei}'s not so bad. >From: Jorge Llambias >> All those FAs and be-beis count as tons of "stuff". >> I agree with Goran. Fi-fa-fu-Lojban is very obfuscating, especially in >> combination with jaifau-Lojban. > >Is there a clear reason for that, apart from its unfamiliarity? Yes. fi-fai-fo-fum are very much like cases, but the fo-ative case doesn't have a generic meaning outside a particular selbri. Maybe the fa-ative tends to be nominative and the feative is accusative, but by the time you're at the 3rd or 4th place the meaning is completely context-dependent. Hmm.. it would be interesting to pretend the FA's were proper cases, and do a study of the gi'uste to see what the fo-places have in common -- a likely bizarre and lojbanic way of classifying the world. :-) Whether the fi-fai-fo-fum style of scrambling places turns out to be understandable I'm not sure yet, but you'd *think* it would be slightly harder than scrambling ordinary latin cases. >So what? (And I don't see why it can't be labelled {fa} rather than >{fai}.) Because FA et. al. don't work the same way as BAI tags; they're strictly numbered places, so {se broda fa mi} does not mean the same thing as {broda fa mi}. I suppose it could have been done either way, though. >Well by that reasoning we ought to have a NU for every sumti. >If > le nu broda koa koe kei = le jaifau broda be koa bei koe, >then let > le fa'a'a broda koa koe kei = le broda be koa bei koe > le fe'e'e koa broda zoe koe kei = le se broda be koa bei koe >etc. That's actually a good idea. But I don't like the event >argument being singled out for special treatment. That is an interesting idea. I haven't grokked your criticism of NU before now.