From yuvalh@hotpop.com Thu Jul 17 02:02:03 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:38:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from twix.hotpop.com ([204.57.55.70]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19d4eI-0001eg-00 for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 02:02:02 -0700 Received: from hotpop.com (kubrick.hotpop.com [204.57.55.16]) by twix.hotpop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 988A948D553 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:01:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from yuval (bzq-218-199-49.red.bezeqint.net [81.218.199.49]) by smtp-3.hotpop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7A22498306 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:01:08 +0000 (UTC) To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Some questions References: <20030716233446.59270.qmail@web41901.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed From: Yuval Harel MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:01:16 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20030716233446.59270.qmail@web41901.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Opera7.10/Win32 M2 build 2840 X-archive-position: 405 X-Approved-By: jkominek@miranda.org X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-original-sender: yuvalh@hotpop.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-beginners On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:34:46 -0700 (PDT), Jorge "Llambías wrote: > > --- Rob Speer wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 07:19:28PM +0200, Yuval Harel wrote: >> > 1) I've noticed people are signing their posts with signatures such as >> > "mu'o mi'e iuvál". Does that not defy the meaning of {mu'o}? > If >> attitudinals are allowed to be attached to {mu'o} it no longer marks the >> > end of the utterance. When used in speech, it seems that the listener >> must > infer where the attached attitudinal list ends from context. >> >> An interesting point - perhaps it should be "mi'e rab.spir mu'o". But I >> think that, as non-computers, we understand that someone saying "mu'o" >> at least gets to finish the sentence. > > {mu'o} is a COI, not a UI. You don't have a complete parse until you hear > a name or a {do'u} after it. Even if it were a UI, "mu'o mi'e iuvál" would still be grammatical, yielding the same problem. In fact, now I am more bothered by that than before. Doesn't mu'o being a COI mean that both "mu'o mi'e iuvál" and "mi'e iuvál. mu'o" are non-gramatical (because no name or do'u is present), and should instead be expressed "mu'o mi'e iuvál do'u" and "mi'e iuvál mu'o do'u"? > It doesn't by itself mark the end of an utterance. The construction that > it heads marks the end of the utterance. That is precisely the problem - how could one tell where the construction ends? It could in theory be an arbitrarily long "mu'o do'u ui ui ui ..."