Re: dikyjvo and rinka

[cbmvax!uunet!mullian.ee.Mu.OZ.AU!nsn]

>I'm not following your argument on 'indirect objects' since I don't understand
>what they are in Lojbanic terms.  

I meant indirect actors. Look, here's how you define {gasnu}

da gasnu lenu da broda de
ni'o da gasnu lenu di broda de .ijo ge da brode daxivo gi daxivo gasnu lenu
di broda de

Because in my mind I identify actor with grammatical subject, I tended to
the first interpretation only. If you indeed allow the second, note that
{gasnu} becomes no longer compulsorily cleft. This may be messy.

>You say that le sudgau = le sudga, do you
>thus also say = le jaigau sudga.  If so, then you make gasnu indeed rather
>worthless, and in effect deny the POSSIBLE distinction of an agentive case
>from just any old 'subject'.  Is this your intent?

I plain don't use {gau}, since I don't like this semantic vagueness you're
introducing (that, coupled with its syntactic inflexibility - you can't
uncleft an x2 - is why I launched my {xai}. And I don't like a distinct
agentive case; I think it waffle. On the other hand, such waffle is what
the dynamicism of Esp affixes is based on, and I can learn to live with
{-gau} as a suffix.

>To clarify perhaps:  if le sudgau = le sudga, this suggest also that
>le selsudgau = le selsudga, because the liquid which is removed is no more
>active than the wheat.  The argument can be extended to all such places.

Yup, from the purely formal understanding of {gasnu} I have. I am prepared
to abandon this perception, but would have to see someone else use {gasnu}
as you'll have it usefully in prose first.