Message-Id: <199602212117.QAA22837@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Wed, 21 Feb 1996 18:06:45 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: PLI: *cukta za'o nanmu (PU: *old response to and #1)
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: U
Content-Length: 1110

> > > cukta za'o zei nanmu = bookish Methuselah. Or, a escaped criminal running
> > >                        from the sentence of castration for liking to
> > >                        read (not too plausible, but imaginable). Also, a
> > >                        librarian female in male body that cannot gather
> > >                        enough money for the sex change operation.
> > Bravo. But you're saying there is a lujvo {zao zei nanmu}. So we look
> > it up in the jvoste. We find it means the reluctant castrato-to-be. But
> > we want to talk about the transgender dysphoric.
> > We can't use {cukta zao nanmu} because it's ungrammatical.
> If I went to the trouble of putting za'o zei nanmu into jvoste, it would
> be general and trivial: x1 is a man for too long. (za'o zei nanmu: n1)

Lujvo meaning is not that predictable. As in my hypothetical example, the
meaning of {zao zei nanmu} could be your overdue gelding. There would then
be no way to get the general meaning of {zao nanmu} within a tanru.
My point is the old one that aspectuals should modify brivla rather than
selbri. coo; mie and