Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 19:29:45 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199801240029.TAA24616@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" Sender: Lojban list From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" Subject: Re: Summary so far on DJUNO X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-UIDL: f40f0def649416c1d01946916dcc180e Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 588 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Jan 26 12:41:22 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - >>And doesn't {fatci} potentially have such a place? >> >>If yes, why is {fatci} totally useless but not the others? If no, why not? > >Yes. But fatci, having only 1 place in its formal place structure, has no >significant semantics OTHER than its absoluteness. Most of the gismu are >multiplace and have semantics defined largely in terms of the interaction >between the places. the 1 placers tedn to be the least useful of the gismu >- the most semantically poor. But {blanu}, {remna} and {sfofa} are all one-placers. Are they as totally useless as {fatci}, then? co'o mi'e xorxes