From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET  Sat Mar  6 22:48:24 2010
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Date: Wed Apr 30 16:07:21 1997
X-UIDL: 862426759.000
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      delayed response vo'a
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: U
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Content-Length: 1398
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Apr 30 16:07:21 1997
X-From-Space-Address: -
Message-ID: <67hgZ975QjG.A.r9G.4w0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

Jorge:
>I don't think it works.  Suppose I respond {mi}.  Then I would be saying
>that I want you to send it to the utterance "mi", not to me.
>Unfortunately di'u, di'e et al don't refer to the referent of the
>utterance but to the utterance itself.  (Unfortunate because the other
>meaning is much more frequently needed.)  Perhaps you could say:
>
>        ma djica le nu mi benji ti la'e di'e
>
>but even that is not really optimal, because a question can always be
>answered with a full sentence, e.g.  {mi go'i}.  Also, even if you just
>answer with a single sumti {mi}, I think {di'e} is the _sentence_ {mi},
>equivalent to the sentence {mi co'e}, and not just the sumti {mi}.

iain:
>ma djica lenu mi benji ti vo'a

Esteban:
>It seems to work, but I'm not sure whether 'vo'a' repeats the first
>place of 'djica' or that of 'benji'.

djica.  Iain is correct.

        ma djica le nu mi benji ti vo'a

vo'a echos the x1 of the *main* bridi, which is "ma".  "ra" would also
work but is subject to possible miscounting.  "le no'a" also works.

Lee:
>Couldn't that be solved by terminating the description sumti explicitly?
>"ma djica lenu mi benji ti ku vo'a"

That makes vo'a the x3 of djica, which is a purpose.  Since the desirer
is not a purpose (which should be an event clause) this makes little
sense.  But sumti raising with "tu'a vo'a" in that position would
probably be clear.

lojbab