Re: TECH: from Nora, again on xo'e

[Iain Alexander <I.Alexander.bra0125@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK>]

la kau,n. cusku di'e

> ... I hold that this mechanism removes a place from consideration,
> rather than affirmatively stating that the place can have no value.  Thus
> I hold that "mi klama" entails "mi litru", because "litru" means
> "klama be xo'e bei xo'e".  "litru" is simply a 3-place predicate whose
> places are a subset of "klama"s.  So "klama be fu xo'e" is a relationship
> related to "klama", but without the possibility of specifying a route.
> This is not the same as saying there is no route (be fu noda) or that
> there is a route but I am not specifying it (be fu zo'e).

This isn't quite what I thought, but appears eminently logical
(and reasonable). :)

But ... if you _do_ want to assert e.g. movement-without-route,
you can't just use {klama be fo noda} ({le fu klama} is the
means of transport btw), since that doesn't assert _any_ kind of
{nu klama} - as lojbab pointed out the negation from {no}
applies to the whole predication.
You would have to do something like {klama be fo xo'e .e noda},
which states that there _is_ some kind of place-deleted going
happening, but not one involving a route.


> Semantically, "soi sumti sumti" means that the bridi
> remains true if the referents of the two sumti, which are typically
 reflexives,
> are exchanged; omitting one sumti means that one of the exchangees is the
> immediately preceding sumti, thus:
>
>         mi prami do soi vo'a vo'e
>         I love you [reciprocity] [x1] [x2]
>         I love you and you love me.
>
>         mi prami do soi vo'a
>         I love you [reciprocity] [x1]
>         I love you and vice versa.

Thank you for explaining that one - it's the first time I've seen
any real explanation of {soi}.

> I still cannot come up with any satisfactory scheme for marking place deletion
> directly in the selbri, where it belongs.  My general idea is that there
> should be a new sort of SE-equivalent, similar to JAI, which has the effect
> of deleting a specified place (swapping it with limbo?), with a format
> something like "xi'o #" where "#" indicates which place to delete.  But
> all ways of specifying "#" (SE cmavo, FA cmavo, actual numbers) seem
 unbearably
> ugly.  Can anyone see how to do this?

Beats me.

mi'e .i,n.