Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of nictytan@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c02::231 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4003:c02::231;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20130609133526.GD24964@samsa.fritz.box>
References: <51A6685C.3010505@lojban.org> <CAMKwHj3gpou-t-6wPOLP7TCXdGhVGU2z+H-z4g=yGJK8Yg2gEg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51A8680E.7040103@lojban.org> <CAMKwHj3+aWwW0E3QP271aRNP8oKMy9hNDipjypX6hhJkauM+_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <51A8F326.2020901@lojban.org> <51A8F89D.2040408@gmx.de> <51B00097.8080004@lojban.org>
 <51B06D24.6020102@gmx.de> <51B46762.8080509@lojban.org> <51B47305.4020704@gmx.de>
 <20130609133526.GD24964@samsa.fritz.box>
From: Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 09:56:57 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOQ8VDU4M6kdzcP=nEdPT+WdBVD0LrJmxxeMEFK-UFEnN09j8g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.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: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c20b06c6bb7e04deb90a18
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

--001a11c20b06c6bb7e04deb90a18
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 9 June 2013 09:35, v4hn <me@v4hn.de> wrote:

> coi rodo
>
> > But the accepted definition of {la} is:
> >
> > la broda == lo selcme be zo broda
>
> No, it is not. The last "accepted" "definition" of {la} is in xorlo which
> states
>
> la [PA] broda - zo'e noi lu [PA] broda li'u cmene ke'a mi
>
> I'm not sure that is the same thing. At least the full structure of the
> subsentence
> includes {zo'e}s, so you can't get around them at all levels.
>
>
It isn't, but it's *very* close. Consider the definition of {lo}

lo [PA] broda -- zo'e noi ke'a broda [gi'e zilkancu li PA lo broda]

In the case where we can drop the quantifiers,

la broda -> zo'e noi ke'a se cmene lu broda li'u mi -> lo se cmene be lu
broda li'u bei mi
which in the case of single-word names is pretty much redundant to {lo se
cmene be zo broda bei mi}.
Finally, if we drop {mi} (as we frequently do), it becomes {lo selcme be zo
broda}.

There is hardly any difference.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

-- 
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.


--001a11c20b06c6bb7e04deb90a18
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">On 9 June 2013 09:35, v4hn <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:me@v4hn.de" target=3D"_blank">me@v4hn.de</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<b=
r><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;bo=
rder-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">

coi rodo<br><br>
&gt; But the accepted definition of {la} is:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; la broda =3D=3D lo selcme be zo broda<br>
<br>
No, it is not. The last &quot;accepted&quot; &quot;definition&quot; of {la}=
 is in xorlo which states<br>
<br>
la [PA] broda - zo&#39;e noi lu [PA] broda li&#39;u cmene ke&#39;a mi<br>
<br>
I&#39;m not sure that is the same thing. At least the full structure of the=
 subsentence<br>
includes {zo&#39;e}s, so you can&#39;t get around them at all levels.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>It isn&#39;t, but it&#39;s *very=
* close. Consider the definition of {lo}</div><div style><br></div><div sty=
le>lo [PA] broda -- zo&#39;e noi ke&#39;a broda [gi&#39;e zilkancu li PA lo=
 broda]</div>

<div style><br></div><div style>In the case where we can drop the quantifie=
rs,</div><div style><br></div><div style>la broda -&gt; zo&#39;e noi ke&#39=
;a se cmene lu broda li&#39;u mi -&gt; lo se cmene be lu broda li&#39;u bei=
 mi</div>

<div style>which in the case of single-word names is pretty much redundant =
to {lo se cmene be zo broda bei mi}.</div><div style>Finally, if we drop {m=
i} (as we frequently do), it becomes {lo selcme be zo broda}.</div><div sty=
le>

<br></div><div style>There is hardly any difference.</div><div style><br></=
div><div style>.i mi&#39;e la tsani mu&#39;o</div></div></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3De=
n">http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;<br />

--001a11c20b06c6bb7e04deb90a18--