Re: TECH: jarco place structure

[Nick Nicholas <nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU>]

To Logical Language Group respond I thus:

#The intransitive is therefore x1 displays property x2 [to audience x3?]
#[in manner/by means of x4?]

#However it is NOT clear how all this gives us transitive display of an
#object; i.e.  "x1 shows the rock to the audience".  I guess you could
#phrase it as a property:  "ko'a jarcygasnu leka zo'e rokci" but am not
#sure this is really satisfactory.

Funny this. The place structure I initially came up with for jarcygau I
thought counterintuitive: g1 j1 j2 j3 j4 --- le gasnu cu jarcygau le jarco
le se jarco le te jarco le ve jarco: the agent shows the object showing
such-and-such a property to such-and-such an audience by such-and-such means.
But in this context, it's clearly appropriate. le rokci is le jarco, under
the new interpretation, and it is just as consistently le se jarcygau. If
the audience is not shown (jarcygau) the rock, it cannot show (jarco) its
properties to that audience. Admittedly, it's something of a mental leap
to go from one concept to the other, but I guess we should live with what
we default with in natural languages: words can cover a fairly broad semantic
range.

I don't see how a means place of jarco would hurt, but the unspecified
property in jarcygau will admittedly be quite a problem, and I can see no
way around it...


"Kai` sa`n swqh~kan t'akriba` piota`,           N N O  nsn@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au
 kai` sa`n plhsi'aze pia` [h [w'ra te'sseres,   I I L  IRC:nicxjo RL:shaddupnic
 sto`n e'rwta doqh~kan eutuxei~s."              C C A  University of Melbourne.
  K.P.Kaba'fhs, _Du'o Ne'oi, 23 E'ws 24 Etw~n_  K H S  *Ceci n'est pas un .sig*