Re: Place structures with {co}

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

la kolin di'e cusku

> While your argument over following places has some merit, I don't think
> it is compelling.

The more I think about it, the more compelling it becomes to me, but
I'm not going to insist if people are happy with the way things are now.

> First, the argument from the parse is inconclusive - it treats the
> selbri as a unit.

Yes, I know that the parse doesn't tell the whole story. Let's strike
that as a piece of evidence.

> Secondly, the primary purpose of this construction is to bring the seltanru
> to the end specifically to make its tergismu available. To use it simply
> to invert the terms without seeking this effect would be a subtle
> stylistic effect only, and not in my view sufficiently important
> to provide specially.

That's a reasonable statement. What I ask is then that the claims that
lojban permits modificand-modifier order if the speaker so desires be
dropped.

But this is my best argument:

> You furthermore say:
> ++++++>
>  We need a convention for what {vo'a}, {vo'e}, etc. mean when used
> in a bridi whose selbri is a co-type tanru. I vote for them to
> refer to the tertanru places only, and not to the unmeritoriously :)
> promoted places of the seltanru.
>
> Also, what are the places of {go'i} and co. when refering to that
> bridi? I also think they should be only those of the tertanru.
> >+++++
>
> I don't agree. As I think is suggested by my argument above, I think these
> gernybasti should take the entire selbri as it stands, and interpret the
> tergismu accordingly.

The problem is that the terbri of that selbri cannot be numbered in any
reasonable way:

daxipa daxire ... {broda co brode} dexire dexici ...

vo'a = daxipa (x1 of broda)
vo'e = daxire (x2 of broda)
vo'i = daxici
...

You never get to dexire, and who knows what happened to dexipa (the
x1 of brode)

Jorge