X-Digest-Num: 121
Message-ID: <44114.121.696.959273824@eGroups.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 21:25:56 -0300
From: "=?us-ascii?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@intermedia.com.ar>
Subject: Re: mut
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 696
Content-Length: 2380
Lines: 59

la djan cusku di'e

>"lojpre" = "lojbo prenu" = "Lojbanic person",
>expending one letter but saving on conceptual machinery.

It should be {jbopre}. loj- is a rafsi for {logji}. Also, there is nothing
wrong with using simply {le lojbo} / {lo lojbo}, "the lojbanic one",
when it is obvious that we are talking of a person. Just as {le klama},
{le tavla}, etc.

>2.  I'm not sure why you didn't use the prim "dislu" (Lojban "casnu")
>rather than a complex; the equivalent Lojban complex is "kanta'a".

I think {ta'arsi'u} (or eventually {simta'a}) is a closer substitute
for {casnu}. I would interpret {kanta'a} as "talking to and in the
company of x2" an opposed to {fonta'a}, "talking on the phone",
{xa'arta'a}, "talking by letter", etc.

>3.  There is no separate LW for the referents of just-spoken sentences.
>Instead, we use the LW for the sentence itself, prefixed by "la'e"
>("lae" in Loglan) to get the referent.  This would work in Loglan
>too.

Can {di'u} stand for a subclause of the previous sentence, as
we want in this case (and in many other cases)? The previous
sentence was {mi djica le nu ...} and what we want to suceed
at is what comes after {le nu}, not at the wishing.

>>    Let us (= speaker + audience + others, acting individually)  agree !!!
>
>That is "e'u lu'a ma'a tugni", where "lu'a" converts what follows
>to individuals; "ma'a" is inherently a mass.

I think this is right, provided that the default quantifier for {lu'a}
is {ro} and not {su'o}. "Let each of us agree" and not "let at least
one of us agree".

This brings me to a recent comment by Colin about the meaning
of Michael's {pa lei karce}, which was intended to mean "one of
the cars" and Colin took it to mean "the one mass of cars". I tend
to prefer the first meaning because it is so much more useful and
cannot, as far as I can tell, cause any ambiguity. I would tend to
interpret a quantifier of individuals (pa, re, ci, su'o, ro, so'i, etc) as
itself converting from mass to individual bypassing the need to
use {lu'a}. (Of course pisu'o, piro, piso'i, etc still work for masses.)
If that is acceptable, then in this case we could also say:
{e'u ro ma'a tugni}. Another example (used by several people) is
{coi ro do}, "Hello to each of you". If not interpreted like this, {ro}
is pretty meaningless there since there is only one "mass you".

co'o mi'e xorxes