From pnewton@gmx.de Fri Feb 28 06:02:25 2003
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 28 Feb 2003 06:02:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from postman.arcor-online.net ([151.189.0.87])
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 18ol5l-0003UJ-00
	for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 06:02:25 -0800
Received: from hamwpne1 (pc1-oxfd1-5-cust27.oxfd.cable.ntl.com [62.254.134.27])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by postman.arcor-online.net (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id h1SE2KJl076763
	for <lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org>; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:02:21 +0100 (CET)
From: "Philip Newton" <pnewton@gmx.de>
Organization: datenrevision GmbH & Co. OHG
To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:00:49 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Backcounting (ri) question
Message-ID: <3E5F79A1.24684.D1E1D6@localhost>
Priority: normal
In-reply-to: <009101c2df2f$c438a9e0$669dca3e@oemcomputer>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-description: Mail message body
X-archive-position: 189
X-Approved-By: pnewton@gmx.de
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
X-original-sender: pnewton@gmx.de
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
X-list: lojban-beginners

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.