Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.15.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.15.18;
Message-ID: <51A497FD.7050302@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 13:41:49 +0200
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: cmevla as a class of brivla
References: <CAHxnAmJvBZ1_4S1OF45n3dd5g2iQmFEGiQbsyBTN6PwybsNkrA@mail.gmail.com> <6a0464a5-b51a-4491-b244-f97de9302d22@googlegroups.com> <CAPAJj9Jm70oKUC5rVE+z1YOcj54JC_rknfDSxYJ79oWg94LdEg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPAJj9Jm70oKUC5rVE+z1YOcj54JC_rknfDSxYJ79oWg94LdEg@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

la .tijlan. cu cusku di'e
> On 27 May 2013 16:40, la arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com
> <mailto:gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>> wrote:
>  > However, I'm not sure what {lo .paris.} would mean under this proposal.
>  >
>  > If cmevla as brivla are considered as names then lo .paris. = la .paris.
>  >
>  > If cmevla is a new class of verbs/content words/predicates (whatever
> you call it) that's another story.
>
> {lo .paris.} would mean the first place of {.paris.} as a selbri.
> {.paris.} would have such a definition as
> x1 me lo se cmene be zo .paris.

That seems good. The other option would be "x1 selcme lu CMEVLA li'u".

> , and {lo} would be pulling its x1 out. It's functionally a description
> sumti like {lo fraso}, not a name sumti (cmene) like {la fraso}. {lo
> .paris.} and {la .paris.} would mean effectively the same, but by
> different mechanisms.

Well said.

> Cmevla & brivla could still be morphologically distinct, but
> syntactically unified under "selbri" or "tanru-unit" (along also with
> GOhA, NU sentence KEI, etc.). I'm not sure about calling it "cmevla as a
> class of brivla". The key criteria of traditional brivla are:
> - having a place structure
> - having a consonant cluster
> - ending with a vowel
> If cmevla were to be a class of (a subset of) brivla, we'd have to get
> rid of the second and third rules, but that would leave the door open
> also to cmavo with a place structure such as {du}.

cmevla and brivla are morphological classes, they will always be 
(morphologically) distinct by definition. The Merge would not be a 
morphological reform, but a syntactic one.

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.