From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Wed Aug 22 10:37:12 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 22 Aug 2001 17:37:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 42176 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2001 17:25:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Aug 2001 17:25:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Aug 2001 17:25:09 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Wed, 22 Aug 2001 18:03:43 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 18:30:36 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 18:30:07 +0100 To: jcowan Cc: lojban Subject: Re: status of ka (was Re: [lojban] x3 of du'u Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta >>> John Cowan 08/22/01 05:10pm >>> And Rosta wrote: [...] #> poi'i [[ [NU] ] x1 is such that poi'i abstraction is true; x1 binds #> ke'a within the abstraction. # #Can you provide a concrete example of such an abstraction, and an #x1 that would make it true? I don't understand this. It's a utility.=20 1. It allows de facto prenexes without need for goi: mi viska la djan =3D la djan goi ko'a zo'u mi viska ko'a =3D la djan poi'i mi viska ke'a 2. It allows for reflexives: mi poi'i ke'a viska ke'a "I see myself" mi poi'i ke'a jinvi tu'o du'u ke'a melbi "I believe myself to be beautiful" 3. It allows sumti tail formation in cases that can otherwise be difficult to handle: le poi'i la djan jinvi tu'o du'u ke'a melbi "certain ones who John believes to be beautiful" le poi'i ke'a viska ke'a "certain ones who see themselves" The basic idea is a NOI converted into a NU. --And.