Received: from mail-bk0-f59.google.com ([209.85.214.59]:55677) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UJm9V-0002dI-Pf; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 07:44:18 -0700 Received: by mail-bk0-f59.google.com with SMTP id jk7sf1991415bkc.24 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 07:43:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:received-spf:x-authenticated :x-provags-id:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:x-y-gmx-trusted:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=cJshUZLtt0UNtbpIn0wRa7WIb1f4miXoIfvf3f7LtFk=; b=cb4qiHjYjjl4Ll/oopRP9y7rs5FpHXeHGQNXCRBAIZiI0sLaah8nTcFQiHjo3C6CKN hrnxM+mIKQg70odCaE+ka1C+k/uK92WxuEGMME2iRkciYgF1ZRtRs3rvqPFg/zGOUCRg Zgwfc+xsm93n3uhwEY6nRxMroh3YAZuksBph2N29ZBbJg1uzhjN/myztM6g7G+lWmplE DqV8EEqgT52qfDq4hHpPEHEgKXsVs7Ro1t5aSNru89QEQNZCCYtWnFsMFIIhm7LINU2s oUJvw1LoPD4wwgO3CoTDhjvpmK3qLbCs0mGTBuswxD2d9Ox0g4XwGdXxVtl8G4Y9C+Ay PFKw== X-Received: by 10.180.189.51 with SMTP id gf19mr689586wic.10.1364136238080; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 07:43:58 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.104.42 with SMTP id gb10ls1655821wib.10.gmail; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 07:43:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.14.215.69 with SMTP id d45mr8819507eep.6.1364136237383; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 07:43:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net. [212.227.17.20]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 6si2042824eej.0.2013.03.24.07.43.57; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 07:43:57 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.17.20 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.17.20; Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.12]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0M2aaZ-1UaD4S0m8L-00sN4C for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:43:57 +0100 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 24 Mar 2013 14:43:57 -0000 Received: from p54AF4A96.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO [192.168.2.100]) [84.175.74.150] by mail.gmx.net (mp012) with SMTP; 24 Mar 2013 15:43:57 +0100 X-Authenticated: #54293076 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+BZ0g7sFiBF89/F8cq3YQI39XalYQIfWVDNzRDRK cpKdf9hBMmtsXK Message-ID: <514F1132.8020502@gmx.de> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:44:02 +0100 From: selpa'i User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] what {me lo broda ku} means and why not allow {selbri NOI} References:

In-Reply-To: X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Original-Sender: seladwa@gmx.de X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.17.20 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=seladwa@gmx.de Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / la .xorxes. cu cusku di'e > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 7:36 AM, la gleki wrote: >> In http://www.lojban.org/tiki/zasni+gerna+cenba+vreji xorxes proposes >> allowing {broda NOI}. >> pe'i it makes no sense and shouldn't be allowed. >> >> {do sanga} = You sing, you're a singer >> {*do sanga noi stati} = *You sing that talented (???) >> >> However, >> {do me lo sanga noi stati} = You are a singer who is talented >> makes perfect sense. > > I think you would want "poi" there. But "noi" with selbri would have a > different use: > > do sanga noi mi na pu djuno > You sing, which I didn't know. Are you saying that {noi} and {poi} would have different uses as selbri/bridi relative clauses? I can see {poi} being a substitute for {gi'e}, and {noi} a bridi relative clause, but maybe there are uses for a {noi}-like gi'e or a restrictive bridi relative clause. There is currently some movement to make {sei} a bridi-relative clause that contains a ke'a that refers to the bridi the sei-clause is in. It's a useful thing to have, but if NOI can be used for this instead, then we can save the more flexible, vague {sei}. The problem I see with {broda NOI brode} is that it messes with constructs like {lo broda NOI brode}. If NOI can attach to selbri, then there is no longer a way to put NOI inside the LE description (e.g. "lo broda noi brode [ku'o] [ku]}, which makes a difference when outer quantifiers are present. Whatever you do, one option gets removed. Depending on the solution, {ku} might no longer be elidible with NOI. If it weren't for these drawbacks, I would be for this change. > This construction would require something like "ke'a" but in selma'o > GOhA, to pick the selbri that "noi" attaches to. Or perhaps "co'e" can > do that job: > > do sanga noi mi na co'e > You sing, which I don't. > > do sanga noi ro da djica lo nu da co'e > You sing, which everybody wants to do. Wouldn't {no'a} work? do sanga noi mi na no'a You sing, which I do not. mu'o mi'e la selpa'i -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.