Re: Getting Married (was: More Chemelem stuff)

[cbmvax!uunet!math.ucla.edu!jimc]

>la nitcion. <nsn@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au> cusku di'e:
> ... The analysis of {spebi'o} (spouse-become, xu?) is transitive, and
> not one of djim.'s event patterns, with the place structure of the nonfinal.
> Harry spouse-became, not Harry spouse-became-to Sally. "Harry and Sally got
> married" is better translated as {bi'ospe}. 

Let's analyse this in more detail.  Some predicates are inherently 
commutative, some are non-commutative, and some can be seen either way
(like cinba "kiss").  Now these are semantically the same:

	la xeris. speni la selis.	la selis. speni la xeris.
	Harry is married to Sally	Sally is married to Harry

However, binxo "become" is not commutative if you define it as "become ...
under conditions ..." or in my style, "x1 changes so event x2 becomes true".
Specifically x1 changes.  Written out in full:

	la xeris. binxo le nu la xeris. speni la selis.
	Harry becomes (married to Sally)

This doesn't say that Sally becomes anything.  In lojban-today, you
could conceivably say

	se binxo le nu la xeris. speni la selis.
	It comes to pass that Harry is married to Sally (commutatively)

However, under my proposal this would need an explicit "da" placeholder 
in binxo x1 because "Harry" would be retro-replicated into a vacant binxo 
x1.  What you really need is the explicit "and vice versa" operator 
(which I can't find in my paper cmavo list and which I therefore represent 
as xyz):

	la xeris. spebi'o (speni binxo) la selis. xyz
	Harry gets married to Sally and vice versa.

(It might be seen as a blemish that sometimes you need to plug some place
(case) with "da" to block retro-replication; however, it's much more 
common that you have to drag an argument of an event out into the main 
phrase -- retro-replication is justified on Zipfean grounds.  And I just
think more naturally with retro-replication available.)

		-- jimc