Return-Path: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@vms.dc.LSOFT.COM Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id LAA20372 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 1995 11:32:09 +0200 Message-Id: <199512120932.LAA20372@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi> Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 8E2D9542 ; Tue, 12 Dec 1995 10:32:09 +0100 Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 09:53:25 MET Reply-To: Goran Topic Sender: Lojban list From: Goran Topic Subject: Re: RET: non-connective fa'u X-To: Lojban Listserv To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1977 Lines: 46 > > > > 10. 14.16. (a) Is there a non-connective version of fahu? As in > > > > "the two men love their respective spouses". > > > Unfortunately no. Since I have no use for {le'i} and co., I might > > > start using them for that function. > > > > pa'aku? as in > > > > le re nanmu pa'a prami le ri speni > > You are right that that is taught somewhere (maybe in the Lessons?) > as the way to do that, but it goes against logic. You are, of course, right. I thought it a bit illogical, but I guessed that you discussed it sometime when I wasn't here yet. And, no, I found it in the ma'oste. But there is really no excuse for my sloppiness. :) > It may be true that {le re nanmu cu prami le ri speni} means that > each loves his own wife, though, without any need for the strange {pa'a}. > That depends on how exactly {ri} behaves with sumti that have more > than one referent, which is not yet clear to me. I think it might be the case: if you can always distribute le/lo into multiple sentences, then le re nanmu cu prami le ri speni should mean the same as pa nanmu cu prami le ri speni .ije pa nanmu cu prami le ri speni .i le go'i cu drata le go'e So I conclude that ri refers to the particular instance, and not to the whole sumti as-is. The second argument is the way go'i behaves, and why we have ra'o: prowords (like GOhA and KOhA) refer to the referent of the word they stand for, and do not just repeat the word. If they would be reevaluated each time they were encountered, that would be another matter. This way, I think everything is evaluated only when introduced (with a non-pro-expression) or when it is explicitly forced (e.g. with ra'o). co'o mi'e. goran. -- GAT/CS/O d?@ H s:-@ !g p1(2)@ !au(0?) a- w+(+++) (!)v-@(+) C++(++++) UU/H(+) P++>++++ L(>+) !3 E>++ N+ K(+) W--(---) M-- !V(--) -po+ Y(+) t+@(+++) !5 !j R+@ G-@(J++) tv+(++) b++@ D++ B? e+* u@ h!$ f?(+) r-- !n(+@) y+. GeekCode v2.1, modifications left to reader to puzzle out