From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Apr 25 06:04:15 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 25 Apr 2008 06:04:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JpNb4-0003A1-K9 for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Fri, 25 Apr 2008 06:04:14 -0700 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.180]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JpNas-00039X-O4 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Fri, 25 Apr 2008 06:04:13 -0700 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id m16so5513678waf.20 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2008 06:03:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=S7zn5Uxh1QzRHQ6zXvrGxU7dHDlLe7XnSt0IGHWHVl8=; b=AbLQLbqY8gQor/BMFEiAkU4RC2J5DuWsgy5DI2f2dSfZ+7RoA0CkT3M8CKBdFyS4OWdo92H38Wa54jm4DzhwBszyOZf8maEjZbHVBElEWC7mS0WTNMiKj676Y10lcdWxZsnb9BLa9TgLByKBKkFuOIMuqKS+z+RUgk6TheE/R2s= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=RXi4NI1F5tQsE/+8mc6JFjl2lpQYg9cIZYokJ9zPR3ETpQY5GQq0ShHxNKeCpojRc2gxJv3JmhoqTmsBZadyXz3aOlM8pMBeZN3+DtKBJKLDP0BuNzfWQSn/xPdvbLGyZQmOZHpCOPV/6gdZwaOoB6EQuv/x9n5wJdc4ln6c5+c= Received: by 10.114.150.1 with SMTP id x1mr3126834wad.46.1209128629498; Fri, 25 Apr 2008 06:03:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.136.19 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Apr 2008 06:03:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2f91285f0804250603t51e88e9bi4eca38ae070aaf3@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:03:49 +0200 From: "Vid Sintef" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: omitting zo'e in a compound bridi In-Reply-To: <925d17560804250537x55568a8r183b878039ec5885@mail.gmail.com> 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 Content-Disposition: inline References: <2f91285f0804250419y6524bfbcu15b4d9d052e9c9db@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560804250537x55568a8r183b878039ec5885@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 540 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 On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > On 4/25/08, Vid Sintef wrote: > > ¿Would the intended construct still be clear if I omit the {zo'e} in this: > > do te ke dunda le cukta [vau] gi'e lebna zo'e [vau] [ke'e] vau mi ; > > .i.e > > do te ke dunda le cukta gi'e lebna vau mi? > > That's not grammatical. Or rather, it is grammatical if you omit > [ke'e], but it parses like this: > > do te ke dunda [ke'e] le cukta [ku] [vau] gi'e lebna zo'e vau mi [vau] > > If you omit {zo'e}, it would expand to: > > do te dunda le cukta mi .ije do lebna mi > > mu'o mi'e xorxes I see. {ke} cannot override {gi'e}, therefore {te} is needed for both {dunda} and {lebna} to have {do} as their mutual x3: do te dunda le cukta [ku] [vau] gi'e te lebna zo'e [ku] [vau] vau mi Now, is this {zo'e} elidable? mu'o mi'e tijlan