Re: TECH: (attention Ivan!) demonstrative predicate cmavo needed?

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

Actually, I've been arguing with myself whether we have in Lojban the
inverse of "tu'a" - something that metonymizes a sumti out to a selbri, with
the grammar of the latter.  This may indeed be what "me" really is, but as
defined, we tend to think of it as the inverse  of "le".  One would normally
think that the result of an inverse to "tu'a" would be an abstraction, of the
level of "su'u".  But then how does an abstraction differ from a concrete
in Lojban, once you hide the structure of the 'inside predication'.

So I'm undecided whether this is covered or not by "me", and not going to
argue for it since I obviously can't think of anythink like it in natlangs.

I think we could use a ti/ta distinction; tu seems less important, but I
would take it if there was support for all three.  I don't know any languages
with 3 way demonstrative distinction to know whether they have 3 way predicate
demonstratives as well.

lojbab