From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Jun 18 12:43:50 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:43:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1I0N8f-0003py-RY for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:43:50 -0700 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.239]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1I0N8d-0003pq-93 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:43:49 -0700 Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id t11so1843913wxc for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:43:46 -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:references; b=OpPchaj7DJawiHSJQa8Vt8mRMyWWRw8vejbjJpcT7OpAijn05urJbjxcgC7RZ8LVQJDU77WnnarS/Nso5h2SVL1gdWTUlq+4RFJyHReBh3nnbmg7UJyrBAdFWGiZThtV94/FzwKnMMeZRpv435URoyhqr/gwN2aZd3kiBGGnelM= 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:references; b=LqpLSEDmfJM+hXDwC5TpcqZRiwGrcBRpfqMWvfgnU+cep/7bk5aveFvm8BtunKgnW4Nw+qov/1Ex3rUOTMIlEgYi/4tnmhArJa/4KX1485VTl/yP/xCg/KpS9NcTAfJo4s3Waf2soJQ4gcFaTbRW/oI3xJfuDT5jcwW+XKzXFBI= Received: by 10.70.74.6 with SMTP id w6mr10243351wxa.1182195825969; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:43:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.9.14 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:43:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2f91285f0706181243k424e015bn2d66d5cf996a9f81@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 20:43:45 +0100 From: "Vid Sintef" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Dots and spaces (was: Logical connectives) In-Reply-To: <925d17560706180748o3f27b113g904c34edc410af3@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_22832_13231104.1182195825902" References: <2f91285f0706171228n2058d9a3k393cbef9f3c2bae6@mail.gmail.com> <1189A858F8918F43BE3F9C7603C73FB4031E7DCA@0456-its-exmp01.us.saic.com> <2f91285f0706180642q1a6965d0l99a2bc2a553dd919@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560706180748o3f27b113g904c34edc410af3@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.1 X-Spam-Score-Int: 1 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 5029 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: picos.picos@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners ------=_Part_22832_13231104.1182195825902 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 6/18/07, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > > 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}. How about {le mi cukta xunre}, where I don't want {mi} to modify the whole {le cukta xunre} but only {cukta} (so, "the redness which is peculiar to th= e book of mine" rather than "the book-specific redness which has to do with me")? Is it an explicit sumti linking which I have to use in that case: {le cukta pe mi xunre} or {le xunre co cukta pe mi}? You said {le mi cukta} & {le pe mi cukta} & {le cukta pe mi} are identical in meaning where {mi} functions invariably as a kind of infix to modify the whole sumti including {le}; then it should be impossible for the {mi} in {le cukta pe mi xunre} t= o target exclusively on {cukta} instead of the whole {le cukta xunre}. If it is that {mi} do actually modify {le cukta} in an exclusive way here, the remainder (xunre) is deprived of the descriptor {le}, divorcing from it, isn't it? ------=_Part_22832_13231104.1182195825902 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 6/18/07, Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
If you consider {le mi xunre cukta}, {mi} does not function as just
anot= her tanru component, so that it modifies {xunre} and the result
modifies= {cukta}. Rather {mi} modifies {le xunre cukta}.

How a= bout {le mi cukta xunre}, where I don't want {mi} to modify the whole {= le cukta xunre} but only {cukta} (so, "the redness which is peculiar t= o the book of mine" rather than "the book-specific redness which = has to do with me")? Is it an explicit sumti linking which I have to u= se in that case: {le cukta pe mi xunre} or {le xunre co cukta pe mi}? You s= aid {le mi cukta} & {le pe mi cukta} & {le cukta pe mi} are identic= al in meaning where {mi} functions invariably as a kind of infix to modify = the=20 whole sumti including {le}; then= it should be impossible for the {mi} in {le cukta pe mi xunre} to target e= xclusively on {cukta} instead of the whole {le cukta xunre}. If it is that = {mi} do actually modify {le cukta} in an exclusive way here, the remainder = (xunre) is deprived of the descriptor {le}, divorcing from it, isn't it= ?
------=_Part_22832_13231104.1182195825902--