From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Sat Aug 04 19:10:15 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 5 Aug 2001 02:10:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 40268 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2001 02:10:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Aug 2001 02:10:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta01-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.41) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Aug 2001 02:10:15 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.25]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010805021013.GIBG15984.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 03:10:13 +0100 To: Subject: RE: remarks on no'a (was: RE: [lojban] Re: Well I guess you do learn something new every day...) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 03:09:21 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <9ki69i+s32a@eGroups.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Adam: > 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.) I admit that I and I'm sure many others, probably including key members of the Lojbanistani inner cabal, formerly had overhastily supposed vo'a would do the job. I share your aversion to sevzi. You could use {se zei nei zei lumci}, but really we do need a general and uncumbersome method of forming lujvo by 'merging/equating' two or more sumti places of the source brivla. I think a good way would be this: * se'e'e, a SE for x1 * a way to logically connect multiple SE * rafsi for SE and the SE connective Then: se'e'e-zei-AND-se-zei-broda > > > 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". I'm not sure whether you understood me. I mean that no'a means: x1 is x1-arg of previous selbri with x2-arg x2, x3-arg x3, etc. In other words, the truth conditions of no'a are not those of the antecedent; rather, they involve the syntactic configuration of the antecedent. > (also it wouldn't be so much fun to play with :-) You can still have this sort of fun with {go'i}, can't you? --And.