From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:50:30 2010 Reply-To: mark.vines@wholefoods.com Sender: Lojban list Date: Mon Mar 10 10:13:03 1997 From: Mark Vines Subject: instrumental places X-To: LOJBAN@CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 818 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Mar 10 10:13:03 1997 X-From-Space-Address: - 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