Subject: remarks on no'a (was: RE: [lojban] Re: Well I guess you do learn something new every day...)

From: "Adam Raizen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 01:08:01 -0000

la and cusku di'e

> Reflexives are not necessarily arguments of the bridi their 
antecedent
> is an argument of. E.g. "I bought a picture of myself" would be a
> putative English example.

What I wanted was a way to say things like "wash" 
(currently 'sezlumci') without 'sevzi'. 'vo'a zei lumci' would work 
if vo'a refers to the same bridi (and there are enough voC rafsi 
unassigned, too.)

> > mi badri le nu do djuno le du'u no'a

> Nonstandardly, I think it should mean "I'm sad that you know
> that zo'e is the x1 argument of the next outer bridi in this 
sentence".
> 
> In other words, the interpretation of {no'a} would not be analogous 
to
> the interpretation of {go'a}.

But then "no'a" would become useless for refering to the sumti of the 
outer bridi, since "le (se) no'a" would all become just "zo'e". (also 
it wouldn't be so much fun to play with :-)

mu'o mi'e adam