From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri May 18 09:41:55 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 18 May 2007 09:41:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hp5Wd-0001ER-0z for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Fri, 18 May 2007 09:41:55 -0700 Received: from express.cec.wustl.edu ([128.252.21.16]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hp5Wa-0001EK-Ke for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Fri, 18 May 2007 09:41:54 -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 l4IGfjl3016236 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 18 May 2007 11:41:45 -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 l4IGfj47018222; Fri, 18 May 2007 11:41:45 -0500 Received: from localhost (adam@localhost) by hive.cec.wustl.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with ESMTP id l4IGfjOe018219; Fri, 18 May 2007 11:41:45 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: hive.cec.wustl.edu: adam owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 11:41:45 -0500 (CDT) From: "Adam D. Lopresto" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: leaving a sumti out In-Reply-To: <1189A858F8918F43BE3F9C7603C73FB4031E7D3D@0456-its-exmp01.us.saic.com> Message-ID: References: <1189A858F8918F43BE3F9C7603C73FB4031E7D3D@0456-its-exmp01.us.saic.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: 4521 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 Yes, that's the normal case. But in this particular case, {go'i troci}, {go'i} is being used in a tanru. It carries all of its filled places with it. The {la .djan.} in the second part is filling the x1 of {troci}, but there's nothing replacing the x1 of {go'i}, because the places of the seltau are really only bound with {be} and such. If it were .i la .djan. troci go'i then yes, the x1 of {go'i} gets overriden with the new x1 supplied, and {troci} doesn't have any places filled. On Fri, 18 May 2007, Turniansky, Michael [UNK] wrote: > 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/ Just because I have a short attention span doesn't mean I