Re: jorne

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

> > I have trouble imagining what {dunda} means if you
> > ziho out one of its places, for example.
>
> I can't think what {dunda fe ziho} or {dunda fi ziho} wd mean, but
> {dunda fa ziho} wd surely mean "receive". That actually seems to me
> like a relatively reasonable use of ziho.

Well, I don't know. In what context would {dunda fa zi'o} be better
than {dunda fa zo'e}?  It doesn't seem to make much difference.

> As another example, say there was a selbri
>   x1 is brother of x2
> such that if x1 is brother of x2 then x1 is male and x1 is sibling of
> x2. In this case, {ro brother be fe ziho} ought just to refer to
> all males. All pretty useless and counterintuitive.

Then you agree that {zi'o} wouldn't be better than zo'e as default?

> > It's a {lanci be noda}, or just a piece of cloth.
>
> A flag-shaped piece of cloth flying from a flagpole is a flag.

Or maybe it is nothing but a flag-shaped piece of cloth flying from
a flagpole. The beauty of natlangs is that they are so ambiguous. :)
"Hey, get that rag off the flagpole, that's no flag there!"

> It is indeed a {lanci be noda} and therefore not a lanci
> (just as I am a {mamta be noda} and therefore not a mother).

Good point. I don't feel any need to call it a {lanci be zi'o}, though.

Jorge