From phma@webjockey.net Tue Sep 10 18:41:41 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 11 Sep 2002 01:41:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 36443 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2002 01:41:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Sep 2002 01:41:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO neofelis.ixazon.lan) (208.150.110.21) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Sep 2002 01:41:39 -0000 Received: by neofelis.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 500) id B243D3C478; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 21:41:28 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] tunlo Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 21:41:27 -0400 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] References: In-Reply-To: X-Spamtrap: fesmri@ixazon.dynip.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0209102141270Q.02338@neofelis> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com From: Pierre Abbat X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=92712300 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 15535 On Tuesday 10 September 2002 19:30, Jorge Llambias wrote: > la pycyn cusku di'e > > >This was one of a set of "basic actions," in the philosophical "muscle > >twitch" sense, that were separated out to allow one predicate to cover a > >wide > >range of "non-basic actions" (twitches with purposes and affecting things > >other than the body itself) by compounding. Whether the philosophy behind > >this was sound, we are stuck with several of these and they seem to work > >OK. > > The full list of basic actions seem to be: cisma, cmila, frumu, > senci, tunlo (smile, laugh, frown, sneeze, swallow). Can you > elaborate on the range that they can cover? > > >On the other hand, we left several potential members of the set unreduced > >and > >somehow manage to deal with all the cases anyhow. > > What are all the cases? > > >(see the "action" set in > >the 1-place predicates in the partially organized lists). > >We can, after all, swallow without swallowing anything, even spit -- and > >{zi'o} is more suspect than compounds. > > I wish this principle had been applied more often. > > In the case of {tunlo}, putting a sumti in a non existent > place is like adding a place with {do'e}. I don't think > it would be hard to interpret what {le sincrboa ba'o tunlo > le xanto} means, would it? Or likewise {da pu laldo ninmu co tunlo le sfani} (which I'm going to tweak as I found some sort-of-rhyming words for the animals). phma