Re: Lunisa- work in progress

In a message dated 7/20/01 1:21:04 PM, samuelriv@YAHOO.COM writes:

<< a:b              a:b|c
a is to b        a is to b by way of c

cat:black             cat:dog|hissing
The cat is black      the cat hissed at the dog
the black is catlike   the dog hissed at the cat
      etc                     etc >>

and...

<<This is where the problem is. Sticking to the simplest
form of logic possible, how do I create a definition
of cause and recipient, or cause and effect?>>

    Now, I've never studied anything close to formal logic, so I hope I don't
insult you if my suggestion sounds dumb.  :)  Here's what I was thinking:  >
can be the simple for "because of", "on account of".  So:

    cat:dog|hissing>cat
    The cat is hissing at the dog.

    If that's too redundant, maybe you can have a word stating which argument
is indicated, like, "la" could be "first argument" and "so" could be "second
argument, so:

    cat:dog|hissing>la  =  "The cat is hissing at the dog"
    cat:dog|hissing>so  =  "The dog is hissing at the cat"

    Or you could put an apostrophe or something after which argument is the
agent, and maybe another sign for recipient in sentences like "I give the
book to you".  Or you could define a word order, so that the first argument
will always be the subject.  Or something like that.

-David