Re: [lojban] Re: xorlo podcast

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On 9/28/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> You are quite right: exactly those words in that
> order will not work, because prelo requires
> {tu'a} with {terpa}, but this is always the
> difference, so I didn't feel the need to mention
> it.

Ah, OK.

> Boring automatic changes give:
> mi terpa ci da no'u tu'a lo jukni .e tu'a lo
> gerku .e  lo nu le tsani cu farlu le stedu be mi

Actually, you need:

mi terpa ci da no'u tu'a lo jukni lu'u .e tu'a lo gerku lu'u
.e [tu'a?] lo nu le tsani cu farlu le stedu be mi

You can't elide the {lu'u}'s or the meaning changes.

And of course, {mi terpa tu'a lo jukni} need not mean
that I fear spiders, it could mean that I fear spiders
becoming extinct or all sorts of other things about
spiders, in the proper context. But something similar
to "I fear spiders" is probably the most likely candidate
without context.

> (I assume {tu'a} is not needed with {lo nu}
> although I can imagine a case ...).

Yes, that was another issue of the old lo, one never
knew exactly how it interacted with abstractions.

> The identification of prelo {lo} with {su'o lo}
> is not quite accurate. {ro lo} would work better,
> though there exceptions even to that, I think.

I took "prelo" to be CLL-lo, that's the one xorlo replaced.

Is {mi terpa tu'a lo jukni} = {mi terpa tu'a ro lo jukni}
in prelo?

What would the understood predicate be like?

mu'o mi'e xorxes