Re: TEXT: advert

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

And:
> Unfortunately I've deleted your message. I read that bit and did not
> understand you to be saying that dakau has some other meaning. But
> forgive me if I read it in excessive haste.

Yes, that's what I was saying. This was the example:

        la pedros frica la markos le ka makau cinba ke'a
        Pedro differs from Marcos in who kisses them.

where I'm using {ke'a} as the lambda variable, i.e. the one that has
the property, i.e. Pedro and Marcos. {makau} is the indirect question.


> Is there at present any offical way of indicating which sumti the ka
> is the property of?

No, there isn't.

In many cases it doesn't matter, because you can just use ordinary
pro-sumti:

        le mlatu cu zenba le ka my barda
        The cat increases in property it is big.

but when there is more than one place in the main selbri for the one
that has the property (like for zmadu, mleca, frica) then a lambda
variable is needed. We don't have one yet.

> Lojbab has opposed your keha suggestion. You
> mentioned a while back that it was discussed at the last lojfest,
> and that some proposal involving kau was made (I forget the details).

At Lojfest it was decided to introduce a lambda variable, but no details
were discussed. I mentioned that at some point someone had suggested
using {kau}, but that I thought it didn't work, for the reason I just
gave.

> > NU <bridi> is a selbri, and the <bridi> part is not optional.
>
> Oh dear. Any idea why the <bridi> is obligatory?

Nope. I suppose the bnf rule could be changed from:

    NU [NAI] # [joik-jek NU [NAI] #] ... sentence /KEI#/

to:

    NU [NAI] # [joik-jek NU [NAI] #] ... [sentence] /KEI#/

Couldn't it?


> > >     naho ku puhu buha be lo gligicnau
> > You don't need the {be}.
> > That would be something like "typically there's a process of some
> > Englishman having such property".
>
> Yeah. I'll have to think about it. Do you reckon it means "Typically,
> the Englishman having such property is a process"?

No, I don't think so. It says that what is typical is there being a process
like that.

To say that something is typically a process, you'd have to use
{na'o pruce} = "x1 typically is a process".

> > Let me guess:
> > le ka vusnei lohe bavmyxalselpinxe zo'utu'e lo'e gligicnau ra prucycpa
> > ije lo'e kotnau ra cerda tu'u
>
> "lohe ka vusnei" my intuition says. The "zohu" here I can't fathom.

I only used it because you seemed to want to put the property in the
prenex. It works as a topicalizer:

        The property of having a taste for whiskey: the Englishman
        acquires it and the Scotsman inherits it.

> But yes: you have it. So I think I may give you the original:
>
>    "An Englishman's taste for whisky is acquired. A Scotsman's is
>     hereditary." [Or it might have been "inherited".]
>
> Now what originally caught my attention about this is precisely that
> "lohe gligicnau/kotnau" is not appropriate here - or at least "lohe
> gligicnau" is not appropriate. The typical-generic Englishman does
> not have a taste for whisky - or at any rate, the ad doesn't imply
> this. Rather, the ad is saying that if the Engman has a taste for
> whisky than the taste is acquired. And the best way to do this, I
> felt, is to have "lo gligicnau" within the scope of "naho". On
> reflection, I am far from convinced this is adequate, but it is too late
> at night for me to get my head round a solution. I welcome suggestions.

How about:

 lo'e ka lo gligicnau cu vusnei lo'e bavmyxalselpinxe cu se pucycpa
 i lo'e ka lo kotnau cu co'e cu se cerda


Jorge