From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Jan 23 14:04:00 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Tue, 23 Jan 2007 14:04:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H9TkF-0008KH-4H for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2007 14:03:59 -0800 Received: from smtp.mail.umich.edu ([141.211.93.160] helo=skycaptain.mr.itd.umich.edu) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H9Tk9-0008K8-1M for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2007 14:03:58 -0800 Received: FROM [141.213.221.81] (bursley-221-81.reshall.umich.edu [141.213.221.81]) BY skycaptain.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 45B68608.7534C.30321 ; 23 Jan 2007 17:02:48 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: <1F820080-F970-4A37-BC88-3AE472E14A41@mindspring.com> References: <1F820080-F970-4A37-BC88-3AE472E14A41@mindspring.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1-156525681 Message-Id: <7B39D558-EF71-4CC2-93CD-B3A73D9A8AFD@umich.edu> From: Alex Martini Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: POM: the Princess puts her foot down Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:02:50 -0500 To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Score-Int: -25 X-Spam-Bar: -- X-archive-position: 3938 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: alexjm@umich.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners --Apple-Mail-1-156525681 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed On Jan 23, 2007, at 4:48 PM, Cortesi wrote: > > Explanation of what's going on, and preceding dialog in this scene, > at: > http://www.tassos-oak.com/tempp/barsoomian.html > > [ li'osai ] > > I'm still confused about the syntactic roles of selma'o PU. It > appears from some examples in the ref.gram. that [bridi] ca > [abstraction] is how to say this-while-that, so "fly straight while > we can" is just {sirji vofli ca [lo?] li'i ma'a kakne}. True? > > Also confused about NU such as li'i -- when is it needful to have a > LE before a NU? Cmavo in NU take bridi and turn them into an abstraction. For example, {nu} makes events. So, it takes {ta bajra} - {that is running} and turns it into {ta nu bajra} - {that is an event of running}. You need LE cmavo if you want to use it as an argument (sumti). For example, *{mi tavla do nu bajra} is ungrammatical because both {tavla} and {nu bajra} are selbri, just smashed together. While you can have more than one selbri in a sentence, you need some more cmavo in there to make it work. The correct form is {mi tavla do lo nu bajra} - {I talk to you [about] the event of running}. Here {le} and {nu} both sort of "surround" the selbri {bajra} to transform it into what we want. Since they often come together, you see it written as {lonu} instead of {lo nu} by some Lojbanists. If you've programmed in C++, think like recasting. Or think of these like a converter pipe fitting/cord/dongle/etc. You started with a selbri (verb) -- then NU turned it into an abstraction but left it a verb. The LE makes it a noun (sumti) so that you can use it as an argument. mu'o mi'e .aleks. --Apple-Mail-1-156525681 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Jan 23, 2007, at = 4:48 PM, Cortesi wrote:


Explanation of what's going = on, and preceding dialog in this scene, at:

[ li'osai ]

I'm still confused about = the syntactic roles of selma'o PU. It appears from some examples in the = ref.gram. that [bridi] ca [abstraction] is how to say this-while-that, = so "fly straight while we can"=A0 is just {sirji vofli ca [lo?] li'i = ma'a kakne}. True?

Also confused about NU such = as li'i -- when is it needful to have a LE before a = NU?

Cmavo in NU take bridi and turn = them into an abstraction. For example, {nu} makes events. So, it takes = {ta bajra} - {that is running} and turns it into {ta nu bajra} - {that = is an event of running}. You need LE cmavo if you want to use it as an = argument (sumti).

For example, *{mi tavla do = nu bajra} is ungrammatical because both {tavla} and {nu bajra} are = selbri, just smashed together. While you can have more than one selbri = in a sentence, you need some more cmavo in there to make it work. The = correct form is {mi tavla do lo nu bajra} - {I talk to you [about] the = event of running}. Here {le} and {nu} both sort of "surround" the selbri = {bajra} to transform it into what we want. Since they often come = together, you see it written as {lonu} instead of {lo nu} by some = Lojbanists.

If = you've programmed in C++, think like recasting. Or think of these like a = converter pipe fitting/cord/dongle/etc. You started with a selbri (verb) = -- then NU turned it into an abstraction but left it a verb. The LE = makes it a noun (sumti) so that you can use it as an = argument.

mu'o = mi'e .aleks.
= --Apple-Mail-1-156525681--