Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tKcS4-0000ZUC; Wed, 29 Nov 95 04:40 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id F17ACA7F ; Wed, 29 Nov 1995 3:40:51 +0100 Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 19:33:50 -0700 Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Special meaning of V-initial X-To: lojban@cuvmb.bitnet To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1300 Lines: 27 >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