Re: dikyjvo, too, bites the dust

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@GREBYN.COM>]

Actually, I suspect that a better basis for the concept is "rule" (javni)
seljva and terjva each have their positive aspects for interpreting jimc's
approach.  Hence seljvajvo or terjvajvo (or make life easy on yourself
and just say "jvajvo".

One argument against Colin's complaint about le'avla (that it should be
selyle'avla) is applicable here - in a sense any and all places of the modifier
apply if there is an event involved.  Yet the event itself is not necessarily
the modifier either.  In the case of le'avla, there is a taker involved
(th 'borrower') as well as a tken thing, and a source, and an event, and
properties, etc.

Likewise here, there are rules that exist (or rather are proposed) to govern
lujvo.  Any of the places of javni can legitimately modify lujvo and you
get the same or at elast a closely related concept.  Indeed, I suspect that
the dikyjvo/jvajvo rules will give approximately the same place structure
under Nick's interpretation, though with perhaps a different ordering of
terms.

Nick?  What does your understanding of dikyjvo as interpreted in your place
structure paper say about "le'avla" vs "selyle'avla"?  (If you actually
addressed this example, my apologies for not having read the papers.)

lojbab