Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Binary Language

From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 20:23:00 -0500

On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 09:42:42PM +0100, Bj??rn Gohla wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Tuesday 25 December 2001 01:25, thinkit41 wrote:
> 
> > No, talk and go would both be one argument concepts. That's how
> > they are in english--the "to" and "about" can both be represented by
> > sentence tags (modals).
> >
> > Between would end up as a one argument concept "is between".
> > Combine would be two arguments, with the second one elaborated on in
> > a further sentence.
> 
> i may be wrong, but it seems that you are recreating the english grammar with 
> more complicated ways of expressing the indirect object.

You'll notice that Thinkit thinks that the indirect object is nothing
but an ordinary prepositional phrase or modal (which would be easily
disproven by looking at, say, French or Spanish).

Thinkit, what kind of idea words _would_ you use to express these modals?
The only example you've given was where the main concept used the idea
word "give" and the modal used "receive", which pycyn pointed out was
rather silly. Given that the "about" of talking is a concept that very
specifically applies to talking (please don't tell me you plan to make
the idea word "is about", to cover all the times that comes up in
English...), won't any idea word which is used to form that modal have a
place which overlaps with your idea for "talk"?

-- 
Rob Speer