From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sun Mar 21 16:26:41 2010 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:26:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NtUXZ-0004es-Lz for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:26:41 -0700 Received: from kcout02.prserv.net ([12.154.55.32]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NtUXT-0004e8-Ui for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:26:40 -0700 Received: from 216-171-189-244.northland.net ([216.171.189.244]) by prserv.net (kcout02) with SMTP id <2010032123262820200e0u11e> (Authid: usinet.kpreid); Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:26:29 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [216.171.189.244] Message-Id: <4ADDB00C-2611-4427-A2EA-A10EFDDCAB5C@mac.com> From: Kevin Reid To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <16d9defd1003211607v44b3b829xb62d34a3b76b5308@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: .imu'ibo Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 19:26:25 -0400 References: <5715b9301003210025q7f680f5eo50b3e7d76c38f116@mail.gmail.com> <925d17561003210712r4b4a02f7l1531cf6997f361c7@mail.gmail.com> <5715b9301003211010h21ddaf0ch95f5f80ae56de924@mail.gmail.com> <925d17561003211043w34812aa9p8f5b0b323657e06@mail.gmail.com> <925d17561003211046s6e0035ddj9a6144fa453de11@mail.gmail.com> <16d9defd1003211607v44b3b829xb62d34a3b76b5308@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam_score: 0.2 X-Spam_score_int: 2 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "chain.digitalkingdom.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: On Mar 21, 2010, at 19:07, chris kerr wrote: > Why was this xoxes? If "pu" had equaled "fi'o purci" it seems like > everything would have been more intuitive. Personally I find it odd > that the sumti that "pu" eats (when it's not in front of a selbri), is > what's in the future. [...] Content analysis details: (0.2 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is freemail (kpreid[at]mac.com) 0.7 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) -0.5 BAYES_05 BODY: Bayes sX-archive-position: 3057 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: kpreid@mac.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners On Mar 21, 2010, at 19:07, chris kerr wrote: > Why was this xoxes? If "pu" had equaled "fi'o purci" it seems like > everything would have been more intuitive. Personally I find it odd > that the sumti that "pu" eats (when it's not in front of a selbri), is > what's in the future. The sumti that "pu" eats, as you put it, is the *reference point*. Remember that what is being *said* is the main bridi; the sumti of "pu" tells you "in the past with respect to what?" Here's an incremental example: starting with the simple pu broda we have "broda occurred in the past". If we convert, syntactically, the selbri tag into a sumti tag, pu ku broda and move this term (tagged sumti) to the end of the sentence broda pu ku the meaning is still the same, and is the same (or almost, depending on what you want to think about "explicitly unspecified" vs. "now") as broda pu zo'e -- "occurred in the past with respect to some unspecified reference point". Now if we specify that reference point, broda pu lo nu brode we have "broda occurred before brode". Also, this is exactly the same as pu lo nu brode kei broda "before brode, broda"; the latter just happens to need another terminator. -- Kevin Reid