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

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

mi'e .djan. .i la lojbab. cusku di'e

> If I point in some direction and say "ta", people will focus on a
> 'thing' in that direction.  But if my intent is to call attention to a
> _relationship_ in that direction, I have no way to clearly do it, UNLESS
> I shop around for a predicate that forces a predicative place.

This wording simply makes no sense to me, on consideration.  You cannot
"call attention to a _relationship_ in that direction", because relationships
do not have spatial locations.  >Events< have spatial locations, and the
necessary and sufficient way of referring to "an event over there", as Nick
says, is "tu'a ta".

> Thus,
> for the usage "do it this way and not that way" you can express it using
> "ta'i ti .enai ta" and the fact that tadji takes a predicate means that
> you are OK more or less.

Yes, well, it's sumti raising.  "ta'i tu'a ti .enai tu'a ta", or else
"ta'i tu'a lu'a ti .enai ta" is better, strictly speaking.  Still, I agree
that using "ta" where an event is expected is probably clear enough.

> But what if what you want to say about the
> demonstrated relationship is something that doesn't handily have such a
> semantic clue based on how you insert it into the sentence.

I think that in fact you will never be talking about the bridi itself, but
rather about an event which is grammatically derived from the bridi.
(But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.)

--
John Cowan              sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
                e'osai ko sarji la lojban.