From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Mar 23 14:35:28 2010 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:35:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NuBl1-0004iw-Vy for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:35:28 -0700 Received: from mail-vw0-f53.google.com ([209.85.212.53]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NuBkw-0004i0-2F for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:35:27 -0700 Received: by vws4 with SMTP id 4so611566vws.40 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:35:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=bbUEgENqYGj9ZzOZdIr6aMmTIsj4KF/NVAIyn3ljgSI=; b=jrI5YEbPkT5WLjdE1gTnRmSGZUlv8ohrpg0oEWc6V0pczROXPYVlv/S49nPkUYZepP wTOeM23x7Gj07BOYfuGTS+Zrc5PJ9Gi6zHQzCKjf82HY2GlnmVd6+JhP/owLTVfyjwcm Uq68RIgBSOmmYJURCGXa3rv/nMGsNMsTSUaIo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=PJA9KH2DtkKelF0sBbWcT434Vg4ucKcINCYDR48rn7yEPoizjx5ikIiM2hWHdaoWS6 bJp/CcbU65+IxVX/tVT4PyIkzQGhqqUsIH1rcAFNXiO8YbbF0knZIYZbD9cNUfSanyPe 5aJZ5QUHyiRSXWBP0AnYreNBkinb/hYoC3y58= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.108.227 with SMTP id g35mr4468771vcp.184.1269380115752; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:35:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <925d17561003231415o228a91efi59d6eb4d04a4e034@mail.gmail.com> 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> <925d17561003230545s3d54d111nc43bfa64a8c16144@mail.gmail.com> <5715b9301003231343p30854781tf74255ceedb03e7c@mail.gmail.com> <925d17561003231415o228a91efi59d6eb4d04a4e034@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:35:15 -0400 Message-ID: <5715b9301003231435g6e735b07h227cd79981f64325@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: .imu'ibo From: Luke Bergen To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00c09f8de539e275b704827e968b X-archive-position: 3066 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners --00c09f8de539e275b704827e968b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > broda .ije brode .ijabo brodi > groups as: > broda .ije (brode .ijabo brodi) Ok, that makes sense.... mostly. BO takes the previous word/construct/whatever and joins it in the shortest scope possible with th= e following word/construct/whatever. And with {.ibabo} the previous sentence implies that they (the two bridi) are connected by the {ba} and that the {ba} is not modifying the following bridi in the normal (self-contained) fashion.... am I right so far? 2010/3/23 Jorge Llamb=EDas > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Luke Bergen > wrote: > > Ok, so the difference between: > > broda .ibabo brode > > and > > broda .ibaku brode > > Is that the first one is saying that {brode} happens after {broda} and > the > > second one is saying that {brode} happens after (?) default of the > speakers > > present? > > Right. "Default" might be too strong, but yes, after something > unspecified, probably the speaker's present, maybe even after broda. > In the case of ".ibabo" it is definitely brode after broda. > > > I'm probably being a little intentionally thick here. The first time I > saw > > {.ibabo} I tried to figure it out on my own and got incredibly confused > when > > I got to the cmavo {bo}. Everything prior to that made sense; [new > > sentence][in the future][tanru short scope link] ?!?!?! Why was it > decided > > to use an already used cmavo for this convention of {.ibo}? > > "tanru short scope link" is just a case of bad gloss for "bo". Simply > "short scope link" would be better, used for tanru among other things. > > broda .ije brode .ijabo brodi > > groups as: > > broda .ije (brode .ijabo brodi) > > as opposed to: > > (broda .ije brode) .ija brodi > > No tanru in sight. > > > It seems > > to me like one of the most non-conventional parts of the language at th= is > > point. Or is {bo} supposed to be more general in some way that it > actually > > makes sense to use it in this other way? > > "bo" is not restricted to tanru, It can be used with all afterthought > connectives, and also in the NAhE BO construction, where it > effectively turns NAhE into something like LAhE. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > > --00c09f8de539e275b704827e968b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>=A0 broda .ije brode .ijabo brodi

> groups as:

= > broda .ije (brode .ijabo brodi)


Ok, that = makes sense.... mostly. =A0BO takes the previous word/construct/whatever an= d joins it in the shortest scope possible with the following word/construct= /whatever. =A0And with {.ibabo} the previous sentence implies that they (th= e two bridi) are connected by the {ba} and that the {ba} is not modifying t= he following bridi in the normal (self-contained) fashion.... am I right so= far?

2010/3/23 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, so the difference between:
> broda .ibabo brode
> and
> broda .ibaku brode
> Is that the first one is saying that {brode} happens after {broda} and= the
> second one is saying that {brode} happens after (?) default of the spe= akers
> present?

Right. "Default" might be too strong, but yes, after someth= ing
unspecified, probably the speaker's present, maybe even after broda. In the case of ".ibabo" it is definitely brode after broda.

> I'm probably being a little intentionally thick here. =A0The first= time I saw
> {.ibabo} I tried to figure it out on my own and got incredibly confuse= d when
> I got to the cmavo {bo}. =A0Everything prior to that made sense; [new<= br> > sentence][in the future][tanru short scope link] ?!?!?! =A0Why was it = decided
> to use an already used cmavo for this convention of {.i<cmavo>bo= }?

"tanru short scope link" is just a case of bad gloss for &q= uot;bo". Simply
"short scope link" would be better, used for tanru among other th= ings.

=A0 broda .ije brode .ijabo brodi

groups as:

=A0broda .ije (brode .ijabo brodi)

as opposed to:

=A0(broda .ije brode) .ija brodi

No tanru in sight.

>=A0It seems
> to me like one of the most non-conventional parts of the language at t= his
> point. =A0Or is {bo} supposed to be more general in some way that it a= ctually
> makes sense to use it in this other way?

"bo" is not restricted to tanru, It can be used with all af= terthought
connectives, and also in the NAhE BO construction, where it
effectively turns NAhE into something like LAhE.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




--00c09f8de539e275b704827e968b--