From pycyn@aol.com Sat Jun 03 11:09:49 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12561 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2000 18:09:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Jun 2000 18:09:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r13.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.67) by mta3 with SMTP; 3 Jun 2000 18:09:48 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.9.) id a.bd.3e3bf5a (3925) for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 14:09:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 14:09:35 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] First steps with 'being'... To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41 From: pycyn@aol.com In a message dated 00-06-03 12:39:36 EDT, aulun writes: << Is this correct? mi klama zo'e ma .i mi mo .i mi klama ma And what's about this: ma te klama zo'e mi .i mi mo .i ma se klama mi Are there (still) other ways to express these old questions of man(kind)?>> mi klama fi ma, for the first, also moving arguments all before or all after the predicate. <> mo cu mi is not grammatical, I think, because mi is not a predicate. ditto ma mi, where neither is, though I am less sure about that <> Put modifiers on mo, a tanru with mo in one place, or prepositional phrases at the end. <> I'm not sure I follow. I don't think do na mi nor do na'e mi is grammatical as a bridi. The relation unexpressed is presumably identity (one of English's 'be's), but that has always to be expressed: mintu, du, or, with descriptors, me. The only unexpressed English 'be' is the copular one, that attaches a subject to a common noun or adjective; that function is inherent in the relation of sumti to brivla within a bridi, so needs no separate mark. But mi is not a brivla, so it does not relate to sumti in that way -- it has no places -- it is a pro-sumti, not a pro-selbri.