Wallops #8

[Ivan A Derzhanski <cbmvax!uunet!COGSCI.ED.AC.UK!iad>]

>  Date:        Tue, 7 Jul 1992 14:05:30 -0400
>  From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@EDU.COLUMBIA.CTR>
>  >From: Ivan A Derzhanski <iad%COGSCI.ED.AC.UK@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
>  >>  From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@EDU.COLUMBIA.CTR>
>  >>  >From: nsn%MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU
>
>  Well, from what I've seen of {me}, it's used *very* often to mean something
>  like {du}.

It can mean that, too.  It is meant to be ambiguous.

>  I'd just be way more likely to interpret {me mi} as "is me".

Well, there's Ockham's razor ("if he had meant `is me', he would have
said {du mi}"), but it is not guaranteed to work.  Still, I would have
chosen something from the gismu list.

>  >>  Maybe {cusku}'s better than {bacru}, too.
>
>  >I'm afraid {bacru lu ... li'u} means {cusku la'e lu ... li'u} - you
>  >utter the words to express their meaning.
>
>  Yes, I was talking about style.  What's of importance here is that the
>  concept was expressed (MTRANS, using that idiom) from entity to entity, not
>  that sounds warbled in the air.  {cusku} catches the meaning better, or
>  Nick's {crusku} would be good too.

It is true that the {nu cusku} is more relevant than the {nu bacru},
but I was thinking of the type of x2.  You utter text ({lu ...
li'u}), you express meanings (la'e the text).

Now wait a minute.  Does {lu ... li'u} mean this particular text, or
the meaning it has when interpreted as Lojban, or both?

>  I see in reduplication
>  mostly a sort of extra-grammatical point, "If the two elements of a tanru
>  are the same, it means augmentation," which is nowhere implied in lojban's
>  tanru-making.

No, there is no such point.  It may mean whatever it pleases.  But
let's see if it is logical for it to mean augmentation, among other
things.  Suppose all events happen between 6am and 6pm, and those from
6am to noon are clira, while those from noon to 6pm are lerci.  Then
in a way the events from 6am to 9am are clira clira and the events
from 9am to noon are lerci clira.  This is the only support I see for
Nick and Colin's position.

>  Remember, that's what we have {je'a} for in the first place.

Ah! that's it.  That's why I oppose {clira clira}: it is borrowed from
languages which have no {je'a}.

Ivan