Message-Id: <199511290249.VAA00618@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Tue, 28 Nov 1995 19:33:50 -0700
Reply-To: Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>
Subject:      Special meaning of V-initial
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

>And:
>> > I agree. I would also prefer that V-initial not be singled out like
>> > that.
>> Do we know why it is? A relic of some ancient Brownian predilection?

Jorge:
>Something to do with the Loglan imperative, I think.

I also remember seeing an argument related to relative phrases something
like this:  in a {poi broda} phrase it's likely that you'll want x1 to be
{ke'a} and to explicitly state x2.  If V-initial weren't special, and if
syntax within a poi were consistent with sentence-level syntax, then you'd
have to explicitly use {fe} or {zo'e} or {ke'a} to get to the x2.

For example, now we say {le nanmu poi prami mi} and the x1 of {prami} is
elided, and we can assume it's {ke'a}, which here equals {le nanmu}.
Without this special treatment of V-initial, we'd have to say {le nanmu poi
prami ke'a mi} or {le nanmu poi ke'a prami mi} or {le nanmu poi ke'a mi
prami}.  So: it saves 2 syllables in what's arguably the most common way of
using {poi}.  May or may not be worth it, depending on how you value word
order flexibility vs. brevity.

BTW should I stick this along with the historical explanation in the FAQ?  I
do think I've heard the question before.
                     ____
 Chris Bogart        \  /  http://www.quetzal.com
 Boulder, CO          \/   cbogart@quetzal.com