Message-Id: <m0tKVm6-0000ZUC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 28 Nov 1995 19:31:24 +0000
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: self-descriptions?
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 2034
Lines: 56

spuda fa la xorxen. fe mi fi die
> > (a) The only relatively unlojbanic order is V-initial (where V=selbri),
> > which wd actually be my favoured order (& Mark's [Culsn]); it's
> > disfavoured by the necessity of using {fa} for post-selbri x1.
> 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?

> > > and worse of all (3) all the arguments have to be be-bei-linked.
> > Well by that reasoning we ought to have a NU for every sumti.
> Maybe we ought to, but that's no reason not to take advantage of
> what's there already.

Well... By using it one is implicitly condoning it. Instead one should
reject it, eschew all usage of it, march through the streets carrying
placards denouncing it.

AR> > > If
AR> > >     le nu broda koa koe kei = le jaifau broda be koa bei koe,
AR> > > then let
AR> > >     le fa'a'a broda koa koe kei = le broda be koa bei koe
AR> > >     le fe'e'e koa broda zoe koe kei = le se broda be koa bei koe
CB> > That's actually a good idea.
> I agree. How about using the convention:
> su'uxipa = fa'a'a
> su'uxire = fe'e'e
> su'uxici = fi'i'i
> su'uxivo = fo'o'o
> su'uximu = fu'u'u

I would prefer:

xe xi pa nu   = nu xi pa    = nu
se nu         = nu xi re   (= su'uxipa = fa'a'a)
te nu         = nu xi ci   (= su'uxire = fe'e'e)
ve nu         = nu xi vo   (= su'uxici = fi'i'i)
xe nu         = nu xi mu   (= su'uxivo = fo'o'o)
xe xi xa nu   = nu xi xa   (= su'uximu = fu'u'u)

i.e. the place structure of nu broda is the same as of nunbroda.

This would placate me, and since it requires no change to the
current syntax, and but little undoing of existing semantics,
I think I might adopt it.

> For example, one would expect that all animals would follow the
> pattern "x1 is a *** of species x2", but there are at least two
> exceptions: tigers and sheep.

I couldn't believe that until I looked it up! O well. One will
just have to remember to say {zilcibtirxu} and {zilciblanme}
until the x3 dies.

---
And