Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id QAA06486 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 16:03:32 -0500 Message-Id: <199511152103.QAA06486@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id F6140ED1 ; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 16:36:22 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 20:34:32 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: lujvo query X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Wed Nov 15 16:03:34 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Iain: > > 1. Does {gerku zei zdani} conform to jvajvo principles? Would not > > {gerku zei se zei zdani}, {gerselzda}, "x1 is kennelled by x2", > > be more fitting? > .ianai > A {broda zei zdani} is some kind of {zdani}. A {gerku [zei] se > [zei] zdani} would be a dog-kind-of behomed-thing. Yes, so a kennel would be a {se gerselzda} or {selgerselzda}. Is there a jvajvo principle that says that in {broda zei cmoda}, b1 = c1? > Naked {jai} was introduced a long time ago as a sort of inverse > of {tu'a}. > x1 jai broda x2 x3 ... > tu'a x1 broda x2 x3 ... > but there's also an extra {fai} place for the original event > in broda's x1. > x1 jai broda x2 x3 ... fai xf > xf po'u lenu x1 co'e cu broda x2 x3 ... > ki'ape'i Kia indeed. I do not feel enlightened. --- And