From cowan Mon Nov 27 13:31:30 1995
Subject: Re: from the paper archives - pc on abstractors and tense
From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 13:31:30 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <199511261340.IAA21188@locke.ccil.org> from "ucleaar" at Nov 26, 95 01:28:41 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length:        531
Status: OR
Message-ID: <38iZz4-UmMB.A.TsB.r50kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

> My criticism of {mue}/{puo}/{zahi}/{zuo} is only that the traditional
> system of 4 situation types has been cast in stone by privileging
> them with their own cmavo. The system is certainly useful descriptively,
> but it is underlain by a different, simpler and more revealing system
> - or so I think and so others think, even if people differ on the details
> of their preferred analysis.

Enlighten us, {doi febvi logji prenu}.  What is this underlying system?

-- 
John Cowan					cowan@ccil.org
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.