Re: "Nearly Correct" (was New thread, anyone?)

[JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

Lojbab
>toldra (to'e drani) isn't a kind of drani either.

I agree. But to'e isn't a selbri and its effect on the word that follows is
well defined. This doesn't really affect my reasoning, I think.

> Neither dukti broda nor fatne broda are likely to be a kind of
>broda.

I would tend to understand them as kinds of broda. For example
dukti mlana, opposite side, would be a kind of side, fatne cadzu,
reverse walk, would be a kind of walk.

>the requirement to have them work as tanru however implies that the
>place structure of broda still applies to its opposite, since you cannot
>change the place structure.

I'm not sure I understand. If you want something like the meaning
of toldra but using dukti, then the right way to form the lujvo is
dradukti: dukti be lo drani.

>I guess I am arguing that your saying that jibni drani has to be a kind of
>drani seem extreme to me, especially inthe context of the multitude of
kinds
>of permissible tanru describe in the Book, deriving from Ivan's paper.

To me it makes sense that any "almost broda" should be rendered as
brodyjbi. The same is true for many other gismu that should form pretty
standard lujvo. For example"brodyrai" will mean "traji be le ka broda"
with practically any broda. It doesn't make sense to rediscover this
every time. I think that the Refgram does mention something like this in
the lujvo section.

>It id a good basic rule of thumb, because you won't run afoul of the place
>structure by requiring the tanru to be a "kind of" the tertau, but it
>potentially limitd the language to make it a general rule.

What are good counterexamples? I'm not saying that there shouldn't
be any, but as long as I can avoid them, I will.

Jorge