From - Wed Feb 28 13:57:19 1996 Received: from wnt.dc.lsoft.com (wnt.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.7]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id QAA05942 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 16:49:05 -0500 Message-Id: <199602272149.QAA05942@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by wnt.dc.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.0a) with SMTP id 55EF8B90 ; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 16:04:55 -0500 Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 19:38:17 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: intemperate response to Lojbab on situational types X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1375 > > > I have no idea what "ko'a mu'e" or "*ko'a pu'u" might mean > > They are both grammatical (as far as I know), and both have obvious > > meanings. {koa mue} means "It is a point event abstraction" and {koa puu} > > means "It is a process abstraction". If you look up NU in you cmavo > > list you will find these two cmavo. > {*ko'a mu'e} isn' grammatical. "mu'e", like any NU, must be > followed by a sentence. {NU sentence /KEI/} is a selbri, > while a lone NU isn't. {ko'a mu'e} parses as (ko'a VAU) -- > "mu'e" is just trailing noise in this case. I suspected this might be so, but it struck me as unlikely, for it is not clear to me why {NU KEI} should not also be grammatical. It can't be to prevent ambiguity, as either way the construct is terminated by kei. Anyway, for {koa mue/puu} read {koa mue/puu bua}. > > I realize that you have no problem viewing their act as lo za,i cinba. > > That is precisely the problem. If {ti za,i} is true than {ti nuncinba} > > is not (assuming {nuncinba} means "is a kiss"). {ti cinba za,i} or > > {ti za,i zei cinba} might be fair descriptions. > *{ti za'i} parses as (ti VAU) > *{ti cinba za'i} parses as (ti VAU) Read {ti za,i bua}, {ti cinba za,i bua}. > {ti za'i ze'i cinba} is OK. It parses as Read {ti za,i zei cinba} = {ti za'i zei cinba}. coo, mie and