[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.