Re: Problem perhaps

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

JL> > 1.  {talsa} is explicitly given as needing a person as x1, with suggestio
JL> >     for other gismu if x1 is a situation or what-have-you.  Can you see a
JL> >     reason for this?  Is regarding an inanimate object as actively
JL> >     presenting a challenge a result of malglico?  Or is it just acceptabl
JL> >     metaphorical use of the language?
JL> 
JL> I find it acceptable, but I don't know what is the official position. I
JL> think

The intent is an agentive challenge, for example as in a guard saying "who
goes there?" or perhaps the glove to the face of a challenge to a duel.
There is intent involved, and thus there must be an intender/agent.

Something that is "challenging" that is not an agent, is generally more of a
hindrance/obstruction, or is a "difficulty" (nandu).

If there is some context that I am missing here that suggests a different type
of challenge than difficulty or hindrance, please explain further.

JL> > 2.  The second sentence is attempting to say that I want to reply to all
JL> >     messages in the language in which they were written; I'm not sure tha
JL> >     what I've written achieves that... Have you got any better ideas?
JL> 
JL> I don't think the x2 of spuda can be a set. Now, I think that
JL> 
JL>         mi spuda ro notci bau le ri bangu
JL> 
JL> means that I reply to each message in its language (if the x2 of spuda can
JL> be an object). If it means that I reply in the language of all of them,
JL> then I don't understand what {ro} means. Perhaps someone could clarify?

We have a way to make this explicit:

mi spuda ro notci bau le bangu pe pa'a

where pa'a is the respectively modal operator.
It isn;t cleasr to me whether one would want to write more explicitly

bau le ri spuda pe pa'a
or
bau le spuda pe pa'a ri

There is also a 'respectively' connective, that could be used in a termset,
but I am not much good at remembering termset cmavo and grammar, since they
come up so seldom.

lojbab