proposals regarding abstractors

["Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!ctr.columbia.edu!shoulson>]

Oddly, I was thinking about "the speed at which I run" just this weekend.
I came up with some interesting translations, none of which involve an
abstractor-generator.  I wonder if I can remember/re-create them....

Oh, I remember, I was playing around with relatives and {me}, I think.
Something like {le ni mi sutra bajra} didn't work for me, since it didn't
specifically refer to "speed" but only the "amount-of: I quickly-run".  I
started getting things like:

le ni/ka sutra poi mi meke'a bajra

This gives the inner bridi to be {mi ni/ka sutra kei bajra} (not sure which
of {ni} and {ka} works better), "I am a quality/quantity-of speed type-of
runner", which isn't quite so natural as might be, but actually seems to
have the right meaning.  For better recognizability, the reversed form {le
ni/ka sutra poi mi bajra comeke'a} might be better.

'Course, that's still a tanru, and I started thinking about how de-tanru
it.  {le ni/ka sutra poi mi bajra sekai ke'a} (or maybe {la'u ke'a}, but I
don't think that's as good) is a good start.  Any other suggestions?

In general, I think the idea of an abstractor-generator is a good one, and
could come in very handy, but I'm a little fuzzy on its putative semantics.
The example that Iain had, {lexu'u nizmapti la cicac. xu'u tcika mi'o
penmi}, points up a weakness in that there's that need for the {niz-} rafsi
in {nizmapti}; I suspect that without better definition of the semantics,
just about everything using it is going to have to have a {ni} in it
somewhere, (and if not lujvo'd, it'll be an abstractor as part of an
abstractor, which is a level of complexity we should avoid, if possible).

Speaking of abstractors being abstracted, I, too, have had some small
problems with {jei}.  Mostly because I get the feeling that {le jei broda}
should be {le jei le du'u broda} (i.e. I can't get the feeling that {jei}
has a {du'u} built in, which it does, to some extent).  This is plainly a
shortcoming in my own understanding, not in the language, but perhaps it's
indicative of something more.  Maybe Colin's right, and {jei} doesn't truly
belong in NU (hey, maybe it should be in LAhE?).

OBTW, I think using {skicu} to handle the intensionality of {le} and {voi}
and the NU family might be cluttering up the grammar of the descriptions as
well as our understanding.  Expanding {voi} to {poi se skicu fo lesu'u} or
some such almost goes all the way to misleading.  I'd prefer something a
little less oppressive, if slightly less specific, like {poi ca'e}.  {ca'e}
or some similar UI probably covers the meaning more succinctly than
{skicu}.

~mark