Message-Id: <199602131454.JAA17350@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Tue, 13 Feb 1996 05:56:31 -0500
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: PLI: *cukta za'o nanmu (PU: *old response to and #1)
To:         ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK
Cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: O
Content-Length: 1400

>Goran to Lojbab
>> > But if you ask me what a "*cukta za'o nanmu" (or "*cukta ca'o nanmu" to
>> > make it easier in theory since za'o is often inapplicable), I have no
>> > idea what it means.
>> 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 [I saw an interesting
>tv docu the other day on this; the solution, as with most problems, is
>to go to Holland] we can't use {cukta zao nanmu} because it's
>ungrammatical. Tragic. That's one that can't be solved by going to
>Holland.

The problem is a missing lujvo term, I think %^)

cukta ke za'orjmive nanmu  (za'o does have a rafsi even if it cannot be
used in tanru, because in lujvo we can pretend to ignore any problems
semantic or grammatical that could result from tenses in tanru, and use the
rafsi as if za'o were a gismu, because we are too hidebound to fight the
battle necessary to make a gismu corresponding to za'o).

lojbab