From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Nov 28 19:48:46 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:48:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GpGRC-000178-He for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:48:46 -0800 Received: from mail.bcpl.net ([204.255.212.10]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GpGR7-000171-Gr for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:48:46 -0800 Received: from webmail.bcpl.net (webmail.bcpl.net [204.255.212.24]) by mail.bcpl.net (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id kAT3mVRO013366 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 22:48:36 -0500 (EST) X-WebMail-UserID: turnip Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 22:48:31 -0500 From: turnip To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002700 Subject: [lojban-beginners] A few questions about chapters 18 and 19 Message-ID: <456F28CC@webmail.bcpl.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 3717 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: turnip@bcpl.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners FINALLY finished the Lojban Reference Grammar! (Yes, there was a long hiatus there). Anyway, a few questions. In Chapter 18: 8.13) ro ratcu ka'e citka da'a ratcu all rats can eat all-but-one rats. All rats can eat all other rats. Does this imply that each rat can eat EVERY RAT but one? That's a lot of rats for one rat to eat. Or is it ambiguous if it means some subset of all-but-one rats? How would one disambiguate the two cases, if the ambiguity is there as written? In Chapter 19, with "si": Can I assume that a cmavo cluster requires a "si" for each of the component cmavo to completely erase, like: najenai si si si ? 9.5) la tcarlis. cusku lo'u le ninmu cu morsi le'u .iku'i ri jmive Charlie says [quote] le ninmu cu morsi [unquote]. However, the-last-mentioned is-alive. Charlie says ``le ninmu cu morsi'', but he is alive. Why doesn't "ri" refer back to "lo'u le ninmu cu morsi le'u", i.e. asserting that the utterance is alive? Isn't that the most recent sumti? --gejyspa