Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 85.13.138.119 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of me@v4hn.de) client-ip=85.13.138.119;
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 13:17:10 +0200
From: v4hn <me@v4hn.de>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] questions about lojban
Message-ID: <20130522111709.GC3114@samsa.fritz.box>
References: <CAMKwHj3psDe1bXsjQo9QPJt9vYohkrLT1ST1oFrYUtAbMsyiZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <519B8B71.90800@gmx.de>
 <CAMKwHj1-RUJy1JYYemDiCxbOe0fmCzuoWeOO9VHPOPtpOxTT_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <519B9D34.3010704@gmx.de>
 <1369156225.81761.YahooMailNeo@web184402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <519BB664.7010505@gmx.de>
 <519BF4C8.7040505@lojban.org>
 <519BF8AE.6080306@gmx.de>
 <1369188023.15568.YahooMailNeo@web184403.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <519C9AB5.3020204@gmx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="wxDdMuZNg1r63Hyj"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <519C9AB5.3020204@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /


--wxDdMuZNg1r63Hyj
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:15:17PM +0200, selpa'i wrote:
> {lo ka ta pelxu} is grammatical but makes no sense to said group of
> speakers because a {ka} abstraction must contain at least one
> {ce'u}. There is no obvious place to go for {ce'u} here, so it's not
> well-formed.

To me it's

{lo ka ta pelxu} => {lo ka ta pelxu ce'u}
"The property of being something that is related
to the statement that /that/(ta) is yellow"

As John said, this can mean quite a lot, so you shouldn't use it, right.
But it's still grammatical and should not be considered "ungrammatical"
on the same level as "li mi ku zbabu".

Anyway, could we please settle the problem I pointed out earlier
and fix the faulty wiki page. Either revert the change by xorxes
(I doubt that's going to happen) or update the text I quoted
to reflect the difference between {PA broda} and {PA lo broda}.
Honestly, I still don't get why the first one was decided to be
grammatical in the first place.. I don't really see any necessity
to have this, especially if it's not just a short hand.


mi'e la .van. mu'o

--wxDdMuZNg1r63Hyj
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlGcqTUACgkQMBKLZs4+wjwjmwCeP9k5OBl/w10QqWP3RPiS+fut
1QkAnja1LhdStGgEei1qjo78ct+xbhKE
=QgQw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--wxDdMuZNg1r63Hyj--