From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Fri Jan 14 23:40:33 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:40:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34)
	id 1CpiXx-0000eB-37
	for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:40:33 -0800
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:40:33 -0800
To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: CONGRATULATION!!!
Message-ID: <20050115074033.GO22838@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
References: <20050114030115.3647.qmail@cl1.phpnet.org> <41E74FCE.7030502@gulik.co.nz> <20050114072626.GN22838@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <41E82E4A.8000202@gulik.co.nz> <20050114205142.GB22838@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <41E85E9B.6080607@gulik.co.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <41E85E9B.6080607@gulik.co.nz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
X-archive-position: 1019
X-Approved-By: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
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: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
X-list: lojban-beginners

On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 01:06:51PM +1300, Michael van der Gulik wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> >On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 09:40:42AM +1300, Michael van der Gulik
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> >>
> >>.ui sai do jinga lo ....
> >>
> >> festi se samymri
> >>
> >>.i mi'a pacna lo nu do gleki lo se jinga gi'e nelci ri ca lo ba
> >>nanca be li so'i
> >>
> >>I assume its x2 of "gleki" because "lo se jinga" (the prise)
> >>doesn't make as much sence as x3 of pacna, and there isn't the
> >>elidable terminator "ku" there.  
> >
> >It's actually because "lo nu" starts a subsentence, which doesn't
> >end until kei, vau, or .i
> > 
> >
> Okay, so does the "lo nu" context extend right past the "gi'e" to
> the end of the sentence? Phew. That's something I didn't consider.

That's correct, yes.

> .i mi'a pacna (lo nu (do (gleki lo se jinga) gi'e (nelci ri ca lo
> ba nanca be li so'i)))
 
> So, the main bridi here is pacna.

Correct.

> Pacna ("hope"):
>    x1 is "mi'a", "we"
>    x2 is the rest of the sentence ("lo nu do gleki..."), an event.

Correct.

> gleki ("happy"):
>    x1 is "do", "you"
>    x2 "lo se jinga", "the prize"
> 
> nelci ("fond"):
>    x1 is "do", because the "gi'e" is scoped back to only just before 
> the "do".
>    x2 is "ri"

Yup.

> I don't understand what the "ca" (presently) modifies. If "ri" is
> "lo se jinga", then I get the fragment:
> 
> do nelci lo se jinga ca lo ba nanca be li so'i
> ("you are fond of the prize for many years", roughly)
> 
> so it appears that "ca" belongs with "jinga". Is this correct?

No.  ca adds a "during time" place to nelci, and then fills it with
lo ba nanca be li so'i

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/