From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Apr 20 08:59:44 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Thu, 20 Apr 2006 08:59:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FWbZI-0005Cj-51 for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 08:59:44 -0700 Received: from express.cec.wustl.edu ([128.252.21.16]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FWbZE-0005Ca-Ed for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 08:59:43 -0700 Received: from hive.cec.wustl.edu (hive.cec.wustl.edu [128.252.21.14]) by express.cec.wustl.edu (8.13.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id k3KFxYuK008080 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 20 Apr 2006 10:59:34 -0500 (CDT) Received: from hive.cec.wustl.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by hive.cec.wustl.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k3KFxYX3010409; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 10:59:34 -0500 Received: from localhost (adam@localhost) by hive.cec.wustl.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) with ESMTP id k3KFxY6C010406; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 10:59:34 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: hive.cec.wustl.edu: adam owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 10:59:34 -0500 (CDT) From: "Adam D. Lopresto" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Falling into x1 sumti? In-Reply-To: <20060420151444.68866.qmail@web38508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: References: <20060420151444.68866.qmail@web38508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 3154 X-Approved-By: adam@pubcrawler.org X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: adam@pubcrawler.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, c k wrote: > It seems that ko wouldn't take up the x1 sumti because you can have > something like "ko mi nelci do", right? Which doesn't mean, ko=x1, mi=x2, > do=x3 No, it does mean exactly that. {ko} isn't special in any way as far as that goes; it fills exactly the same place that {do} would. The rules are that places start at x1 and each subsequent sumti fills the next slot. As a (slightly) special case, if there are no sumti before the selbri, the first sumti after the selbri starts at x2 (and the next is x3, and so on). So {ko mi nelci do} is exactly the same as {ko nelci mi do} (neither of which makes that much sense, since the x3 of nelci isn't defined). I think you're looking for {mi nelci ko} (which is the same as {mi ko nelci}). > Also since in a bridi like "klama mi tu" mi=x1 and tu=x2, That's not true either. If there are no sumti before the selbri, the first sumti after it starts at x2. So in {klama mi tu}, x2=mi and x3=tu. > then wouldn't "le gurni" in the name way fall into the x1 sumti since no x1 > was given? The x1 was ko. > But then, "ko vi'i fe'e di'i se sombo le gurni" doesn't look right either, > and I'm not sure why. Grammatically, it's fine. Semantically, it should be {sombo} instead of {se sombo}. > c k wrote: > Hi all, > > In the following bridi, why doens't "le gurni" fall into the x1 sumti spot? > > ko vi'i fe'e di'i sombo le gurni Ok, it took me a while to realize what the real problem is. Yes, that sentence is semantically incorrect. {le gurni} is filling the x2 of {se sombo}, which is the x1 of {sombo} (the agent who sows the seed) instead of the x2 of {sombo} (the seed sown). So the sentence should be ko vi'i fe'e di'i sombo le gurni -- Adam Lopresto http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/ Money talks, but all mine ever says is, "Goodbye."