|
Am 24.09.2012 23:55, schrieb Mike
S.:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:44 PM,
selpa'i <seladwa@hidden.email>
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012
at 3:41 PM, selpa'i <seladwa@hidden.email>
wrote:
I had also proposed vl = "x1 is
an event involving x2", for things
like
"la ckta le vleka
plkeka'a".
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
Is there a Lojban word especially
related to vl-?
I don't think so. I think I picked something I
liked the sound of, and it also happens to have two
consonants from the word "inVoLve". I didn't know
relatedness to Lojban was important. I considered
tx- because of tu'a, but I'm not sure about the
status of x and h at the moment. vl- is a bit easier
to pronounce though, so I don't know.
Okay, I was just curious. Question for John Cowan:
Is there a rafsi related to tu'a?
tu'a has no rafsi, not even related. You have to either use
tu'a itself as a root (tx) or go a long way to bridi sinxa.
Also, would it be correct to say that
je ra vla fa smo'e ra fa smo'e vla
?
I'd say no, strictly speaking. The o'e might have
different referents, that is, we don't know what the
implicit argument(s) in "fa smo'e" are, at least in
Lojban that would be the case. I'm not sure what
xorban's policy is here.
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
What I was trying to ask is whether things fitting into
the x1 of vl- (leaving x2 unspecified) were exactly the same
things that fit into f-. It would be useful to have such a
predicate.
Yes, they are both of the same "type", namely events. Just
like "la plka fa smo'e"/"la fa smo'e plka".
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
--
pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo
doị mèlbi mlenì'u
.i do càtlu ki'u
ma fe la xàmpre ŭu
.i do tìnsa càrmi
gi'e sìrji se tàrmi
.i taị bo pu cìtka lo gràna ku
|