From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:54:28 2010
Return-Path: <LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI
Received: (qmail 3692 invoked from network); 27 Aug 1997 14:37:18 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6)
  by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 27 Aug 1997 14:37:18 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <9.EC917612@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Wed, 27 Aug 1997 16:37:08 +0100
Date:         Wed, 27 Aug 1997 09:38:33 -0600
Reply-To:     mark.vines@wholefoods.com
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         Mark Vines <vinesm@WHOLEFOODS.COM>
Subject:      Re: Comparison: Loglan / Lojban ?
X-To:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>,
              LOJBAN@CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET> "Comparison:
              Loglan / Lojban ?" (Aug 25,  4:14pm)
Content-Length: 815
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <cdoakPksDtG.A.Jw.k20kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

coi doi lobypli

Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET> said:

> Another area of significant difference is that we worked
> with an existing semantic problem involving varying levels
> of abstraction (the phrase "object raising" is used in
> linguistics, and we use "sumti raising" in the more
> generalized Lojban case) within the semantics of many
> predicates.  An example of this is the distinction between
> "The food is done" vs. "The preparation of the food is done".
> Lojban requires that the former be marked because "the food"
> is "raised" from the abstraction "the preparation of the
> food".  TLI Loglan has no way to mark this.  The result is
> semantically very muddy.

Mark Vines responds:

How should sumti raising be marked in Lojban?  I doubt that
I am doing this correctly.

co'omi'e markl.