On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:43 AM, selpa'i
<seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 18.08.2012 17:20, schrieb la gleki:
At first some examples.
1.{mi ce do simxu lo nu viska} - presumably it's "We see each other" although we don't know what places of {viska} must be filled with {mi,do}.
mi jo'u do simxu lo ka ce'u ce'u viska
(also works with joi and ce)
So in the chat it has been suggested that we could move {soi} to JOI with the following result:
3.{mi soi do ze'e prami}, quite a laconic way to say "We loved each other since the beginning of time".
But what is prami2?
Even more examples:
4."France and Britain had been at war [with each other] for 100 years".
lo fraso joi lo brito pu jamsi'u ze'a lo nanca be li panono
Are these specific enough? I expected something like "lo frasygu'e" and "lo britygu'e" (I don't remember their short rafsi).
stevo
So don't you think that those multiple meaningful examples that are supposed to be frequently realised in our speech are enough to settle the issue with {soi}?
We have simxu, which is much cleaner, and you can always make -si'u- lujvo to shorten it, so I don't really see the point of this proposal. Some time ago, I proposed to allow "empty" soi, that is, allow it to be used without anything inside, and also to allow inifinitely many arguments so that both these become grammatical:
mi do soi prami
"I love you and you love me."
"We love each other."
se slabu soi mi do lo pendo be mi [se'u]
"Me, you and my friend all know each other."
This is a sort of afterthought simxu, which I sometimes wanted to have, but which doesn't exist (I don't like the current soi).
All of the arguments in the soi-phrase reciprocally do [bridi], in all [meaningful] ways possible.
The proposal didn't get much attention back then, but I guess I can bring it up again.
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
--
pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.