Re: Problem perhaps

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

la i,n cusku di'e
> cu'u la lojbab.
> > mi spuda nu'i ro notci nu'ufa'u bau leri bangu
>
> > with the intent that the non-logical connective "fa'u" will distribute
> > the proper bangu to each of the notci.
>
> I can't say I like this much.

I can say I don't like it any.

I'm surprized that an untagged sumti can be connected (using fa'u in this
case) with a BAI tagged sumti. I can't think of a case where this would
make sense.

> I'd even prefer something like
>
>     li'o bau le la'e zo fa'u bangu ku [to'isa'a zo'o toi]

a'unaicai
i ko basna zo zo'o

> I think the sumti joined by the {fa'u} should be similar, as in the
> Cowan example you quote
>
> > la djan fa'u le maik,l cu kansa levo'a speni
> > John and Michael accompany their (reeespective) spouses.

I agree. Here's another Cowan example (connectives paper):

14.12)  la djeimyz. fa'u la djordj. prami la meris. fa'u la martas.
  James jointly-in-order-with George loves Mary jointly-in-order-with Martha.
        James and George love Mary and Martha, respectively.


And it doesn't always have to be sumti joined by {fa'u}, for instance
one could have:

        mi fa'u do pu fa'u ba klama le zarci

meaning that I went and you will go to the market. But whatever two things
are joined by {fa'u}, they have to be playing the same role.

> (I seem to remember something similar-but-different coming up a while back,
> something about I-in-English and you-in-Lojban discuss something-or-other.
> I must try and dig it out and see if it helps.)

>From the connectives paper:

15.7)    nu'i mi bau la lojban. nu'u joi do bau la gliban. nu'u casnu
        ( I in-language Lojban massed-with you in-language English ) discuss.

> > ni'o
> > On a slightly related point, I have not seen any comments regarding my
> > discussions with Randall Holmes,

I started writing a reply, but got so mixed up between the Lojban and the
Loglan that I gave up.

> > nor have I been able to identify the
> > "reflexive pronoun" that I thought we had added to Lojban.

The VOhA series is the closest I can think of as a reflexive.

> > Was there any
> > feelings regarding how we should treat reflexivity in Lojban (as I satted in
> > stated in my earlier posting, "ke'a" and "ri" do not work in a sumti such
> > as "le kansa be le ??? speni"
> > "the accompanier of (his) spouse"
>
> I think we agreed that {no'a} could refer back to the "enclosing" selbri
> in cases like this (not just a bridi as the 6/94 cmavo list says),
> which would give you {le kansa be le leno'a speni}.

I think there's a problem there. In this case {no'a} is jumping up two
levels: {speni} would be the first selbri up, and {kansa} the second.

Is {le catra be le no'a} the killer of him/herself?

Besides, how far up do the VOhA go?

        mi catlu le catra be vo'a

Is that "I look at the killer of me" or "I look at the killer of themselves"?

I think the VOhAs should refer to the closest selbri up, then we'd have our
reflexive there, but I suspect they refer to something else.


> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> la temci cu se pilno la rarna le nu fanta le nu co'ida rode fasnu

i ry pilno la canlu le nu fanta le nu fe'eco'ida rode fasnu

> mi'e .i,n.
>

mi'e xorxes