Re: lemi mela .AIsopos

[John Cowan <cbmvax!UUNET.UU.NET!snark.thyrsus.com!cowan>]

la nitcion. cusku di'e

> Possible, but I doubt it. My rule of thumb is that, in {na'e}, the sumti
> are still related to eachother, and with {na}, they aren't necessarily.
> I not-get the grapes; I not-improve my situation. The distinction I've
> made is probably not really there; in any case, what I really wanted to
> say, by analogy, and couldn't, by restrictive grammar, is {ka'enai}.

If "ka'enai" were grammatical, it would mean exactly the same thing as "na
ka'e".  "-nai" on a tense is always contradictory (except perhaps for TAhE,
where the question isn't settled) and not really necessary; it can always
be converted to bridi negation.

> It is clumsy, but I ultimately want the preceding lujvo to be able to give
> the place structure of the loan-word, not just restrict the semantic field.

I suspect this approach is hopeless.  There are simply too many le'avla.
Note my "skamrpartiti" in the quicksort algorithm; its place structure is
like nothing Lojbanic.

> *Of course* I didn't think of that. Conversationally, I doubt anyone would,
> but that's a matter for usage. OK, be it {rode}.

The new quantification overrides the previous one, so any further usage of
"da" is the "roda".  If you always quantify and restrict "da" at each usage,
it's safe to keep re-using it.

la kolin. fain. cusku di'e

> >             the x2 and x4 of "cusku"
> >             are surely very different animals?
> >              It appears to me that EITHER
> >                  "lo se cusku" is a piece of text, utterance etc, in
> >             which case "cusku" has no place to express the meaning,
> >             and you'll have to use something like "le se cusku cu
> >             xusra ledu'u ..."
> >             OR   "lo se cusku" is a meaning, content etc, in which
> >             case you probably want "le ve cusku cu xusra ve cusku
> >             ledu'u..." (and all the people who have written things
> >             like "la fred. cu cusku lu ..." are wrong).
>
> I can't decide, and will leave this to lojbab's editorialism.

Usage seems to indicate that "lo se cusku" is a piece of text, in which case
the meaning of the text would be "la'e lo se cusku".  The x4 place is meant
to be the medium of expression, not the expression itself:  lo ve cusku be fo
dei (the medium-of-expression of this-utterance) is e-mail.

--
cowan@snark.thyrsus.com         ...!uunet!cbmvax!snark!cowan
                e'osai ko sarji la lojban