From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri May 18 07:52:18 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 18 May 2007 07:52:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hp3oY-0007aF-1Q for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Fri, 18 May 2007 07:52:18 -0700 Received: from mclmx.mail.saic.com ([149.8.64.10]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hp3oV-0007a7-75 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Fri, 18 May 2007 07:52:17 -0700 Received: from 0015-its-ieg02.mail.saic.com ([149.8.64.21] [149.8.64.21]) by mclmx.mail.saic.com id BT-MMP-799829 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Fri, 18 May 2007 10:51:55 -0400 Received: from 0015-ITS-EXBH01.us.saic.com ([10.43.229.18]) by 0015-its-ieg02.mail.saic.com (SMSSMTP 4.0.5.66) with SMTP id M2007051810515523901 for ; Fri, 18 May 2007 10:51:55 -0400 Received: from 0456-its-exmp01.us.saic.com ([10.75.0.188]) by 0015-ITS-EXBH01.us.saic.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 18 May 2007 10:51:55 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: leaving a sumti out Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 10:51:55 -0400 Message-Id: <1189A858F8918F43BE3F9C7603C73FB4031E7D3D@0456-its-exmp01.us.saic.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [lojban-beginners] Re: leaving a sumti out Thread-Index: AceZWqLgz2nOXq3BSZKTY2C2Z1QulwAARY2A From: "Turniansky, Michael [UNK]" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 May 2007 14:51:55.0455 (UTC) FILETIME=[13FA24F0:01C7995C] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 4508 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: MICHAEL.A.TURNIANSKY@saic.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners I respectfully disputer your interpretation of go'i, Adam. From the CRG, Chapter 7: "6.9) mi klama le zarci .i do go'i I go-to the store. You [repeat last bridi]. I go to the store. You, too. Note that Example 6.9 means the same as Example 5.6, but without the bother of assigning an actual broda-series word to the first bridi. " What is example 5.6? "5.6) mi klama cei brode le zarci .i do brode I go-to (which-is claim-1) the store. You claim-1 I go to the store. You, too. In the second bridi, ``do brode'' means ``do klama le zarci'', because ``brode'' carries the x2 sumti of ``mi klama le zarci'' along with it. It also potentially carries the x1 sumti as well, but the explicit x1 sumti ``do'' overrides the ``mi'' of the antecedent bridi. (Similarly, any tense or negation that is present in the antecedent is also carried, and can be overridden by explicit tense or negation cmavo on the pro-bridi.)" Note the use of the word "override". The places are replaced, not added to. --gejyspa -----Original Message----- From: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org [mailto:lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org] On Behalf Of Adam D. Lopresto Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 10:13 AM To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: leaving a sumti out 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?