The thing about selsku is that some text cannot be represented indirectly, e.g. zo quotes of non-selbri, such as {zo ui}.This raises a question. We frequently say we pilno words. Is this usage correct? If we let pilno3 be a function involving pilno2, then the type of pilno2 comes from that selbri and we're safe. Otherwise, there is type opaqueness in pipno2.
{.i mi pilno zo coi .i mi pilno lo plise .imi citka lo selpli}
Technically you are missing zilkai/selbri as well as whatever we want to call ni abstractors (which are also functions), both of which are in the apstrake category naturally. That said, interesting proposal, but I'm uncertain that selsku is in the same category as the rest. It's subtle because of the {se du'u} indirect discourse trick, but selsku seem to be by themselves to me.mi'e la latro'a mu'o--On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:05 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
apstrake x1 is a grammatical abstraction of type x2All lojban constructs can be divided either to{apstrake}: {bridi}, {fasnu}, {selsku}or {naly'apstrake}: {namcu}, {dacti}.Unfortunately JVS doesnt like {apstrake}. Alternatives are {astrato} (from Italian) or tcosiango {from Mandarin chou1xiang4}.{sucta} has been misused for this concept.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com .
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out .
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com .
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out .