From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Nov 13 08:48:48 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:48:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1L0fN9-0006Nh-Rh for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:48:48 -0800 Received: from mx.freeshell.org ([192.94.73.19] helo=sdf.lonestar.org ident=root) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1L0fN6-0006NY-BI for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:48:47 -0800 Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (IDENT:jwodder@sverige.freeshell.org [192.94.73.4]) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.2/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mADGmfqg009835 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:48:41 GMT Received: (from jwodder@localhost) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.2/8.12.8/Submit) id mADGmfnG016227 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:48:41 GMT Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:48:41 +0000 From: Minimiscience To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: more le lo Message-ID: <20081113164839.GA26822@sdf.lonestar.org> References: <5715b9300811130732n669e3f6esce4de0b81d442f65@mail.gmail.com> <200811131055.32015.phma@phma.optus.nu> <702226df0811130806h51c83c15k17acd2c5d2b6c45c@mail.gmail.com> <5715b9300811130815w280f634ctae99c496e9ca16e@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5715b9300811130815w280f634ctae99c496e9ca16e@mail.gmail.com> Organization: SDF Public Access UNIX System User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 1028 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: minimiscience@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners de'i li 13 pi'e 11 pi'e 2008 la'o fy. Jon Top Hat Jones .fy. cusku zoi skamyxatra. > As a side note, would the following also work? > > le nanmu noi ny. cu tcidu .skamyxatra No. "{ny.}" and other {lerfu} strings act as pro-{sumti}, not pro-{selbri}. If you want to equate two {sumti}, you can use "{no'u}," though without a previous explicit assignment, "{ny.}" will default to referring to "{le nanmu}," and so "{le nanmu no'u ny.}" will mean "the man who happens to be himself." de'i li 13 pi'e 11 pi'e 2008 la'o fy. Luke Bergen .fy. cusku zoi skamyxatra. > or how about "le nanmu noi ri cu tcidu"? Or does "ri" refer to the last > sumti from the previous selbri? Or does "ri" refer to "le nanmu"? In which > case we're just being redundent. .skamyxatra Again, "{ri}" is a pro-{sumti}, so "{no'u}" should be used instead of "{noi}." While I'm pretty sure that "{ri}" will not refer to the object of an enclosing relative clause and so in this case will refer to whatever {sumti} came before "{le nanmu}," unless that {sumti} is "{lo nanmu}," this construct will not work as intended. Regardless, if you want to explicitly say that the thing you have in mind actually *is* an instance of its descriptor, I believe that "{le nanmu noi nanmu}" (or, more precisely, "{le nanmu noi ca'a nanmu}") is the best way to do it. However, there isn't really any need to be that explicit; you can use either "{le}" or "{lo}" here and, unless you're discussing both men and some kind of "pseudo-men," the listener should be able to figure out the nature of what you're referring to from context. mu'omi'e la'o gy. Minimiscience .gy. -- do ganai ka'e tcidu dei gi djuno lo dukse