From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Jun 18 07:48:16 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Mon, 18 Jun 2007 07:48:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1I0IWd-0005ef-43 for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 07:48:15 -0700 Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.250]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1I0IWa-0005eX-2p for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 07:48:14 -0700 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b21so400553ana for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 07:48:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=sUiusap8od76ab2chXZpeXQNVXTEZjjKUqyI2i/o6XBtmN4PlBly7wN+iqXBnqnKcnsrA6sThSzZuzfydCsyDXiK0JPxO9b+cSwSOpcpHQDZ7jW/4uYciObGYKF5sbqdqUDB4WkQ399Ibm55KW6r7cYVYmVphHuSrP8lmdgUYaQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=ERRUHHitboqv7eKKm8IA9dOXZ1kvgHp9LzS0R517HXGYO7SloVbQvzsAhyVO5X4a89zhXTaXW9xoQvrqflMae5dMeBLc9OYxrCWmCEnmbpc1tlbjO7cDUPEyXLBfl+sptTm6BAgBmxP2FYNm4UsYP7D8CcvF0p2j2kZB20z5EQM= Received: by 10.101.66.11 with SMTP id t11mr1993197ank.1182178087091; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 07:48:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.42.17 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 07:48:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560706180748o3f27b113g904c34edc410af3@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:48:07 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Dots and spaces (was: Logical connectives) In-Reply-To: <2f91285f0706180642q1a6965d0l99a2bc2a553dd919@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <2f91285f0706171228n2058d9a3k393cbef9f3c2bae6@mail.gmail.com> <1189A858F8918F43BE3F9C7603C73FB4031E7DCA@0456-its-exmp01.us.saic.com> <2f91285f0706180642q1a6965d0l99a2bc2a553dd919@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 5013 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners On 6/18/07, Vid Sintef wrote: > > I tend to separate "le" from others in a phrase like "le mi cukta" so that > the fact that "mi" modifies "cukta" and "le" is the descriptor of "mi cukta" > as a whole is clearer: { le | mi cukta } rather than { lemi | cukta }. I don't like {lemi} either, but it may be misleading to think of {mi} as modifying {cukta}. In fact {le mi cukta} = {le pe mi cukta} = {le cukta pe mi}, and {mi} is a kind of infix that really modifies the whole {le cukta}. If you consider {le mi xunre cukta}, {mi} does not function as just another tanru component, so that it modifies {xunre} and the result modifies {cukta}. Rather {mi} modifies {le xunre cukta}. {lemi} is not as bad as {lenu} though, which can actually be misleading. Writing {lenu} is like writing {lecukta}. It distorts the true syntactic relation between {le} and what follows. {lexunre cukta} would give the totally false impression that {le} is more closely attached to {xunre} than {xunre} to {cukta}, and similarly {lenu klama kei cumki} seems to suggest that {le} is more closely attached to {nu klama kei} than {nu klama kei} is to {cumki}. It is not uncommon to forget that {kei} terminates just {nu}, not {lenu}. > I prefer ".iseri'abo" to ".i se ri'a bo" since it's semantically a specific > version of ".i", altogether mediating two sentences rather than separately > being within and constituting one sentence: { mi pu gunka | .iseri'abo | mi > ca tatpi } rather than { mi pu gunka | .i | se ri'a bo mi ca tatpi }. Yes, {.iseri'abo} does make more sense. It can also be used to distinguish it from {.i seri'aku} which has more or less the opposite meaning. mu'o mi'e xorxes