Re: le mi jurdi

[cbmvax!uunet!math.ucla.edu!jimc]

la "Arthur W. Protin Jr." cusku di'e
> Rather than say the thing of mine which is an address
>     "lo mi judri"
> I want to say the thing which is the address of me.
> something definite for
>     da poi da judri mi

This pattern comes up fairly commonly; I see it most often with body
parts and garments (defined in -gua!spi, but not Lojban, analogous to
"x1 is x2's hat").  One possible convention is this:  The pre-s-selbri
argument ("mi" here) is usually just like any other argument of the
s-selbri, and thus goes in x2 with no special linking.  However, if x2
cannot accept it (because it doesn't exist, or because an abstract
sumti belongs there), you fall back on "pe" (nonrestrictive) or "ne"
(restrictive).  

By the way, the official interpretation of "lo mi judri" is "lo judri
pe mi" nonrestrictive.  I can't think of a circumstance when I would
want the nonrestrictive "pe"; I would always want the restrictive
"ne", as in 

	pe'u   ko       dunda fi mi le mi mapku .enoi le tu mapku
	Please (imper.) give     me    my hat    not   your hat

If you believe in diklujvo, the most flexible interpretation is to 
analyse the s-selbri as if it were going to be a type 3 (transitive)
diklujvo, and then drop the pre-argument into the transitive place, if
it exists. This usually gives the same answer as above, but when the
transitive place is other than x2 it gives a little more flexibility.

Note that the grammar allows any argument in the pre-argument site, but
a long argument is atrocious style, as in

	le (la kristoforo  kolon. ku) bloti
	       Christopher Columbus' boat

		-- jimc