Re: intemperate response to Lojbab on situational types

[Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>]

> Date:         Sun, 25 Feb 1996 17:44:51 +0000
> From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
> Subject:      intemperate response to Lojbab on situation types

[..]

> > I have no idea what "ko'a mu'e" or "*ko'a pu'u" might mean
>
> They are both grammatical (as far as I know), and both have obvious
> meanings. {koa mue} means "It is a point event abstraction" and {koa puu}
> means "It is a process abstraction". If you look up NU in you cmavo
> list you will find these two cmavo.

    {*ko'a mu'e} isn' grammatical. "mu'e", like any NU, must be
    followed by a sentence. {NU sentence /KEI/} is a selbri,
    while a lone NU isn't. {ko'a mu'e} parses as (ko'a VAU) --
    "mu'e" is just trailing noise in this case.

[..]

> I realize that you have no problem viewing their act as lo za,i cinba.
> That is precisely the problem. If {ti za,i} is true than {ti nuncinba}
> is not (assuming {nuncinba} means "is a kiss"). {ti cinba za,i} or
> {ti za,i zei cinba} might be fair descriptions.

   *{ti za'i}         parses as (ti VAU)
   *{ti cinba za'i}   parses as (ti VAU)

   {ti za'i ze'i cinba} is OK. It parses as

      (ti {<za'i [(ze'i cinba) VAU] KEI> VAU})
                 |    sentence    |
           |          selbri           |

As za'i-events represent a subclass of the general nu-events, {ti za'i
cinba} would seem to imply {ti nu cinba} -- {za'i} gives just a more
precise characterization.


  co'o mi'e veion