[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban-beginners] Re: Backcounting (ri) question
On 28 Feb 2003 at 14:46, G. Dyke wrote:
> cu'u la filip
>
> > If I want to say "I am grateful for my wife. She makes me happy.", can
> > I say {mi ckire fi le speni be mi .iu .i ri gekygau mi} ?
> >
> > That is, does the {ri} refer back to {mi} or to {le speni be mi}?
>
> it refers to {mi} (although in my with my gricean hat on I like to think
> that {ri} "counts past" other pro-sumti, in fact I wish it did)
It does "count past" "most of the other cmavo of KOhA, and the almost-
grammatically-equivalent lerfu words of selma'o BY" (refgramm), though
I had forgotten that fact. Maybe it was a bad example; {...le speni be
la filip.} or so might be better. Would {ri} then refer to {la filip.}?
I suppose so, since that's "the last complete sumti appearing before
the 'ri'". In that case {ra} might be better?
> I think it should be {mi ckire le speni be mi}
Isn't that "I'm grateful *to* my wife (for something)" rather than "I'm
grateful (to somebody) *for* my wife"? (Though the gi'uste does say
that x3 is "event/property"... what would be better, then: {fi tu'a le
speni be mi}? I'd prefer not to have to get as explicit (and long-
winded) as {mi ckire fi le nu zasti fa le speni be mi} or {mi ckire fi
le nu le speni be mi be'o mi xendo gi'e prami}.)
mu'o mi'e .filip.
--
filip.niutyn. <Philip.Newton@datenrevision.de>
All opinions are my own, not my employer's.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.