From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:50:24 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Received: (qmail 201 invoked from network); 6 Mar 1997 23:24:07 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 6 Mar 1997 23:24:07 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <3.544CC72D@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 0:24:05 +0100 Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 14:10:31 -0600 Reply-To: mark.vines@wholefoods.com Sender: Lojban list From: Mark Vines Subject: instrumental places X-To: LOJBAN@CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 818 Lines: 23 Message-ID: la lojbab. spuda mi di'e > Thus sance and sarji above, if they are truly > ambiguous, are flawed I don't believe they are either flawed or ambiguous. I was merely curious about how the place structures came to have their present form. Neither my questions nor any of the answers that I have received contain any evidence of flaws or ambiguity in this area. IMO it's a non-problem. Look at the x3 place of {zasni}. It can be filled by a standard or by an "expectant". Any of us could point to (or devise) a case theory whereby a standard would belong to one case & an expectant to another. Does this mean that the {zasni} place structure is ambiguous? Of course not; it means only that the case theory in question is less than elegant in its attempt to describe the place structure of {zasni}. co'omi'e markl