From archibal@fresco.Math.McGill.CA Sun Mar 07 21:44:45 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sun, 07 Mar 2004 21:44:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from fresco.math.mcgill.ca ([132.206.150.41]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1B0DZF-0007sn-3A for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Sun, 07 Mar 2004 21:44:45 -0800 Received: (from archibal@localhost) by fresco.Math.McGill.CA (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i285iDB04745 for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 00:44:13 -0500 Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 00:44:13 -0500 From: Andrew Archibald To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Feedback on phrases Message-ID: <20040308004413.K8729@fresco.Math.McGill.CA> References: <100e21fcf79.fcf79100e21@imap.epfl.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <100e21fcf79.fcf79100e21@imap.epfl.ch>; from gregory.dyke@epfl.ch on Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 10:22:00AM +0100 X-archive-position: 571 X-Approved-By: archibal@math.mcgill.ca 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: archibal@math.mcgill.ca Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-beginners On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 10:22:00AM +0100, GREGORY DYKE wrote: > le mi palku cu barda (my pants are big) .ija le mi solri blaci cu manku .i ko se zgike .o'u.u'e > barda is the selbri > le mi palku is a sumti Ah. Maybe it would be clearer to say that every sentence needs a selbri at the top level? > > I can see the justification for it ({le} and {lo} should never > > implicitly make an assertion) but it does seem awkward. > > no! lo does make an assertion: > > lo kanba cu citka = > da poi kanba zo'u da citka > > there exists a goat such that this goat eats. Well, all {lo} asserts is ``there exists a goat''. Not that this is trivial: {lo vofli xarju cu ma} is a question making a rather dubious statement. Can it be answered with Hofstadter's "unask that question!"? Is {na} sufficient? co'o Andrew