Subject: Re: [lojban] Request for grammar clarifications

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 15:14:56 -0400

At 02:55 PM 05/27/2001 -0400, Invent Yourself wrote:
>On Sun, 27 May 2001, Nick Nicholas wrote:
> > 1) de'i
> >
> > Is it legal to say {ti xatra de'i li pano}, and by consequence {le xatra be
> > de'i li pano}? Does the date cmavo introduce a date *conventionally*
> > associated with the predicate (as I remember it), so that you can say this
> > is a letter on the tenth? Or is {de'i} tantamount to {ca}, deriving its
> > semantics *only* from {detri}, in which case such an utterance would be
> > misleading? (It's a letter on the tenth, but it's still a letter today.) In
> > other words, does {de'i} correspond to "dated", or to "on"?
>
>
>The cmavo list says "ti'u" is for letters.

It also says that de'i is for letters.

I'm not sure I understand what the contention is otherwise, unless we are 
seeing a resurfacing of the desire to have the modals taken in a most 
restrictive semantic interpretation so that they cannot be 
useful. Originally of course the modals only metaphorically referred back 
to the source gismu, but by the time of the book had evolved to me more 
definitionally tied so as to at least require the converters to access 
other-than 1st places of the source gismu.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org