From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Mar 10 12:19:11 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:19:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1D9U7i-0002r5-Uq for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:19:10 -0800 Received: from web41906.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.157]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D9U7h-0002qg-P2 for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:19:10 -0800 Received: (qmail 13916 invoked by uid 60001); 10 Mar 2005 20:18:39 -0000 Message-ID: <20050310201839.13914.qmail@web41906.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.49.74.2] by web41906.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:18:38 PST Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:18:38 -0800 (PST) From: Jorge "Llambías" Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Moon River To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org In-Reply-To: 6667 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "chain.digitalkingdom.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: --- Matt Arnold wrote: > But is it acceptable to nest relative clauses as the following does? > doi la lunra poi rirxe > noi se minli ganra There are three points where you can attatch a relative clause to a sumti like {la lunra [ku]}: after {la}, between {lunra} and {ku}, and after {ku}. By convention, attatching it after {la} has the same meaning as after {ku}. Between {lunra} and {ku}, the relative clause is part of the name, after {ku} it is not part of the name, so here you probably want either {la poi rirxe ku'o lunra} or {la lunra ku poi rirxe} if the idea is to restrict the referents of {la lunra} to just those that are rivers. {la lunra poi rirxe} is equivalent to {la lunra poi rirxe ku}, and that's why you could grammatically have {noi se minli ganra}, which will come after the elided {ku}. A third clause would be ungrammatical. To attatch more than one relative clause to a sumti at the same level, you can connect them with {zi'e}. [...] Content analysis details: (-2.5 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-archive-position: 1229 X-Approved-By: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar 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: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-beginners --- Matt Arnold wrote: > But is it acceptable to nest relative clauses as the following does? > doi la lunra poi rirxe > noi se minli ganra There are three points where you can attatch a relative clause to a sumti like {la lunra [ku]}: after {la}, between {lunra} and {ku}, and after {ku}. By convention, attatching it after {la} has the same meaning as after {ku}. Between {lunra} and {ku}, the relative clause is part of the name, after {ku} it is not part of the name, so here you probably want either {la poi rirxe ku'o lunra} or {la lunra ku poi rirxe} if the idea is to restrict the referents of {la lunra} to just those that are rivers. {la lunra poi rirxe} is equivalent to {la lunra poi rirxe ku}, and that's why you could grammatically have {noi se minli ganra}, which will come after the elided {ku}. A third clause would be ungrammatical. To attatch more than one relative clause to a sumti at the same level, you can connect them with {zi'e}. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo