Subject: Re: Problem with Long Distance vo'a

From: Nick NICHOLAS <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 22:02:49 -0700 (PDT)

cu'u la xod.
>mi djica le nu klama ko'a ko'e soi vo'a vo'e

Yes, it's a problem. We can:

(a) say a uniform treatment of vo'a is too important to sacrifice,
which would mean what you're saying is nonsense (= soi mi lenu klama), and
you should be saying instead {soi ko'a}, or more generally {soi lenei
[lesenei]}.

(b) start making exceptions, and say the interpretation of vo'a is
flexible.

Ironically, originally the interpretation of vo'a *was* flexible; in the
archives, you'll see people very frequently qualifying vo'a with vo'a pe
di'u, vo'a pe dei &c. in the olden days. Problem is, of course, there's
no {di'u} equivalent for {nei}, as I
found (http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9201/msg00063.html), and
it'd be silly to start saying {vo'a pe lenu nei} or {nei zei vo'a} (!!).

I'd rather break this example phrase than everything else. Keep {vo'a} as
it is, and use {lenei} when you absolutely must have a short-distance
reflexive.

A reminder btw that the Wiki has much sanity on vo'a, compiled yesterday,
at:

http://nuzban.wiw.org/wiki/index.php?Why%20the%20Book%20is%20Right%20and%20the%20ma%27oste%20is%20Wrong

and my magnum opus

http://nuzban.wiw.org/wiki/index.php?Prior%20usage%20and%20discussions%20of%20vo%27a

-- 
== == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == ==
Nick Nicholas, Breathing {le'o ko na rivbi fi'inai palci je tolvri danlu}
[email-masked] -- Miguel Cervantes tr. Jorge LLambias