Re: Lujvo Paper: continuation of examples from way back

[VILVA@VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI]

> Date:          Sun, 11 Jul 1993 17:31:41 +1000
> From:          Nick Nicholas <nsn%MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
> Subject:       Lujvo Paper: continuation of examples from way back

> This example may not be very convincing: after all, we can indeed talk of
> a {le te kubli}, which corresponds exactly to {le xavmla}, describing the
> cube's sides. Why not just rein in Lean Lujvo, and leave the x1 where it
> is? Admittedly, brivla without an x1 make little sense; but to show how
> pervasive the phenomenon is, consider {manskapi} as a translation of
> "dark-skinned person". {le skapi} is skin, while {le se skapi} is the
> person, so it makes sense to speak of {le se manskapi} for people so
> complexioned. And indeed, when the lujvo was coined, it was used like that
> to describe "blacks". But does it then make sense to speak of {le manskapi}
> at all? In other words, can we tolerate as sensible a place structure saying:
> "x1 is the dark skin of person x2", or "x2 is a dark-skinned person, with
> skin x1"? I doubt it: the skin is clearly so uninteresting to the definition
> of the person x2, that it seems absurd to accord it a place: the seltanru is
> all the mention it deserves. This all would suggest a faulty veljvo --- but
> no better veljvo is apparent. In this jvoste, I have retained the
> irrelevant-seeming x1 in such cases; the alternative is too much havoc. But
> we would be surprised to see forms like {le manskapi} be taken up in usage
> independently from {le se manskapi}.
>

    How about in cases like

      mi nelci le ko'a manskapi

      le le vi xabju ku manskapi cu melbi ko'e

   These sentences express 2 facts at the same time - the explicit
   stated fact and the implicit fact that we are talking about
   le se manskapi.


      co'o mi'e veion

------------------------------------------------------------------

 Veijo Vilva       vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi