From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Dec 19 08:11:29 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:11:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1J51W5-0007uO-8U for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:11:29 -0800 Received: from mail.bcpl.net ([204.255.212.10]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1J51W0-0007uD-V3 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:11:29 -0800 Received: from webmail.bcpl.net (webmail.bcpl.net [204.255.212.24]) by mail.bcpl.net (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id lBJGBGga015908; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:11:16 -0500 (EST) X-WebMail-UserID: turnip Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:11:16 -0500 From: turnip To: "Jorge Llamb=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=EDas?=" , lojban-beginners X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002700 Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: [brivla + brivla] and [brivla + KOhA] Message-ID: <476BB1D2@webmail.bcpl.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis X-Spam-Score: 1.1 X-Spam-Score-Int: 11 X-Spam-Bar: + X-archive-position: 5863 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: turnip@bcpl.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners >===== Original Message From "Jorge Llambías" ===== >On 12/19/07, Vid Sintef wrote: >> Some pretty much basic questions. >> >> I forgot how the following expression is unambiguous: >> >> { le puzi culno ca kunti } >> >> The given translation is "The one full just a little time ago is now >> empty", so it is meant to be a complete bridi consisting of the sumti >> { le puzi culno } and the selbri { ca kunti }. But is it not also >> possible that the two brivla { culno } and { kunti } make up one >> sumti, meaning "the full-just-a-little-time-ago-kind-of now-empty >> one"? > >No, tanru units cannot have their own tag (except within ke-ke'e >brackets). The tense applies to a whole selbri, not to an individual >tanru unit. You can get the other reading with ke-ke'e: > > {le ke puzi culno ke'e ke ca kunti [ke'e]} > >That's a single sumti. jbofi'e doesn't like it. Does camxes? Can you point me to where in the grammar is that construction allowed? (I would have personally said "le puzi culno me lo ca kunti", but then, I like "me" :-D --gejyspa