From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Jun 04 09:55:19 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Thu, 04 Jun 2009 09:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MCGDm-0000y4-Vt for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Thu, 04 Jun 2009 09:55:19 -0700 Received: from mail-bw0-f223.google.com ([209.85.218.223]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MCGDe-0000ws-Tg for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Thu, 04 Jun 2009 09:55:18 -0700 Received: by bwz23 with SMTP id 23so799251bwz.34 for ; Thu, 04 Jun 2009 09:55:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=VHQN3PxDjtJbepk07wLU3vQgJONPNb8wbZnth60Qro8=; b=FknEXbBEl72LSQdoXgBAs8ln6b7t+Ko84FFHfjAi7lAtPgKg1p69PRhAPyzMRmKINe F7zslgs0sp7xq0XATgrOFMAdGmpJ+feQv/YQIkhcRootBH3p729rv9yUpmJm3FQk7Nz7 jg4NEgeTgdvWrzvuRuIHflER3d3x/VADZBYuI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=W3PNmBgFVdgQ3FJ7ekNYMuIyvL5T0f+25eH5emuhH8VZZR3lM/OQTz1moA90XaaAjG mF6h7AP7R+MHwqjTt91YhGI/57Rano9gtsWTf4KRdVgziJGSP4RbQVjoKe5QhvC+XV5s 6Q1eqQoKRfgqtZSJXvwbIjLJuTzlCKLlnJc/o= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.137.12 with SMTP id p12mr1554545mun.94.1244134504397; Thu, 04 Jun 2009 09:55:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <96f789a60906040844y4ea89084nfb6ccd7137763b63@mail.gmail.com> References: <4de8c3930905311309u20c6e72xffaa964ae140d208@mail.gmail.com> <20090531202510.GA13449@sdf.lonestar.org> <4de8c3930905311402s14e9d50y3b35466d51b4f25f@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560906010539m2be6b21dg6008b8865668a909@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60906040640q6a9d21c7rc2ec597d190576ac@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560906040726u73c448fey6bb5c1379f88b53f@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60906040844y4ea89084nfb6ccd7137763b63@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 18:55:04 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 27c806ec44ca4ac9 Message-ID: <4de8c3930906040955y7413f96dm3c17771fdd11cb89@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: broda moi From: tijlan To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis X-archive-position: 1772 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jbotijlan@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners 2009/6/4 Michael Turniansky : >> The use of "me (sumti) moi" to mean "x1 is (sumti)'s" is not mentioned >> in CLL however, it is a latter innovation. > >  Do  you find any particular need/aesthetic value in using this > construct rather than a NOI or GOI (or in the case of selbri use, > ponse, srana, ckini, steci and the like)?  It seems like a very odd > thing to me to take something with no "numerosity" associated with it, > and combine it with a cardinality aspect. To me, "ti se ponse mi" sometimes sound too agentive and also inadequate for such a sense that the x1 (ti) is _among_ other things that I possess. "ti me mi moi" is less agentive and would imply that there are other members of "mi's", which is what I sometimes come across to translate. In the same vein, constructs like "ko'a me lo tsali me'u moi" appears to me at least semantically useful if not syntactically economical. mu'o mi'e tijlan