Return-path: X-Spam-Personal-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on chain.digitalkingdom.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on chain.digitalkingdom.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Delivery-date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:35:30 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MjKtm-0007Mb-Rc; Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:35:25 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list jbovlaste); Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:34:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MjKt7-0007MO-1S for jbovlaste-real@lojban.org; Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:34:41 -0700 Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.121]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MjKt2-0007K0-DI for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:34:40 -0700 Received: from chausie ([71.75.215.96]) by cdptpa-omta01.mail.rr.com with ESMTP id <20090903223429693.KGTU8054@cdptpa-omta01.mail.rr.com> for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 22:34:29 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chausie (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3C1FE33A for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 18:34:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Pierre Abbat To: jbovlaste@lojban.org Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: grammatical constituents Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 18:34:22 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200909031834.24379.phma@phma.optus.nu> X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: phma@phma.optus.nu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-list: jbovlaste Content-Length: 1484 Lines: 33 On Thursday 03 September 2009 16:32:48 MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com wrote: > I don't think they should be numbered at all. And subject and object and > indirect object are parts of sentences, so something with component "jufra" > 'sentence' (juf ju'a. x1 (text) is a sentence/statement about x2 > [topic/subject/predicate/focus] in language x3 1h 111 [phrase (= > jufpau, suzrelvla, suzvla, gensle)]) Subjects and objects are parts of clauses, not sentences. A clause is a bridi; a jufra can contain several of them, or none at all. As to numbering them, I'm taking the viewpoint of someone who knows Lojban grammar and tries to describe a natlang in similar terms. Of course, such a grammarian will run into parts of speech, such as adverbs and adjectives, that don't exist in Lojban, but verb arguments are familiar, and he will number them as he is used to. I (1) run. I (1) hit the ball (2). I (1) give Tom (3) the ball (2). I (1) bet you (3) ten quatloos (2) (that you (1) can't find a tritransitive verb (2)) (4). The last sentence has two subjects and two direct objects, because it has two clauses. The terms "subject" and "object" are artifacts of the Greek and Latin grammarians whose foundation we build on. Had English grammar been based on Sanskrit grammar, we would probably have numbered places. Sanskrit has eight cases, which are numbered 1-7 in Sanskrit grammar (the vocative considered something else and not assigned a number). Pierre