From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri May 18 07:13:34 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 18 May 2007 07:13:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hp3Cu-0001Ru-IL for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Fri, 18 May 2007 07:13:26 -0700 Received: from express.cec.wustl.edu ([128.252.21.16]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hp3CU-0001QT-If for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Fri, 18 May 2007 07:13:12 -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 l4IECpDK020351 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 18 May 2007 09:12:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: from hive.cec.wustl.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by hive.cec.wustl.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l4IECpco015719; Fri, 18 May 2007 09:12:51 -0500 Received: from localhost (adam@localhost) by hive.cec.wustl.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with ESMTP id l4IECo6Q015716; Fri, 18 May 2007 09:12:51 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: hive.cec.wustl.edu: adam owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 09:12:50 -0500 (CDT) From: "Adam D. Lopresto" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: leaving a sumti out In-Reply-To: <2f91285f0705180637r7b9fed73x7b6dcf13eb5eb6f2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <2f91285f0705180637r7b9fed73x7b6dcf13eb5eb6f2@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 4502 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 Fri, 18 May 2007, Vid Sintef wrote: > A sentence from Lojban Reference Grammar Chapter9: > > la djan. klama le zarci .i la djan. go'i troci > > Can "la djan" in the second sentence be left out since "go'i" should imply > all sumti related to the selbri of the last sentence? Sort of. {go'i} does carry over all the sumti, but it carries them attached to the {go'i}. That is, in la .djan. klama le zarci .i go'i troci The latter bridi is equivalent not to {.i la .djan. klama be le zarci be'o troci}, but to {.i klama be fa la .djan. bei le zarci be'o troci}. In fact, in the example given, the second sentence is actually equivalent to {.i la .djan. klama be fa la .djan. bei le zarci be'o troci}, where John is the x1 of both klama and troci. > Also, can a repeating "ko" be left out, without connecting the selbri with > "gi'e"? > That is, is > > ko lebna ta .i dunda lo cnino vanju botpi mi > > instead of > > ko lebna ta .i ko dunda lo cnino vanju botpi mi > > possible? Or would that "dunda" without "ko" loose the intended imperative > sense? It's certainly possible, in that it's grammatical and legal. But without specifying the x1 of {dunda}, you're leaving it implicit. So I don't think it would normally be considered an implicit imperative, unless context were overwhelming. -- Adam Lopresto http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/ If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to *buy* her friends?