Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of nictytan@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22e as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22e;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <274032a8-a7d3-4ef6-9ef3-ede559362a19@googlegroups.com>
References: <3729f7bd-3aa6-499c-9a20-4b3d040d3ad8@googlegroups.com>
 <CA+gZtg+Z5G30sNjBiOtOxFwE5Js=4uwM3T9Sd2MftKHxjoG88Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOQ8VDVOxKYbUoRCPDoLPpMxxWFobVQ=j0wStj=JDobXzwYS_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <b22c720e-ccb3-43af-ad2c-0db522e5844a@googlegroups.com> <CAOQ8VDWvOUw7r2RFOhuLmF0cssAE5LEUUKJ1QtJOUBsKzroi9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <fe420003-35a6-45b3-a9cd-e2c428b979ea@googlegroups.com> <CAKOEKkQtSd+TpVhgbx4tWQCrmfOfOUMRkxS=j_rpeLcv0WSOxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOQ8VDXC4BtasPubD2sgGwJmvUhoq=WVL1iqYVkkA1Mjy=EsVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <6035ac71-4afd-48f6-9223-49cc81b983d9@googlegroups.com> <CAOQ8VDXWrLwD9ZsULhUSzAWMs5vm6SVZUCjwfpdaaA9Z9YYVHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <274032a8-a7d3-4ef6-9ef3-ede559362a19@googlegroups.com>
From: Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 15:07:30 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOQ8VDVAT-aDV4zm6+rWFwxU+qqjS=EXb9v=oDv9fmd1TChmXw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] A bug in the CLL 7.6 example 6.14).
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=089e015387dc20bfcc04dfd70384
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

--089e015387dc20bfcc04dfd70384
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 23 June 2013 14:29, la arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, June 23, 2013 9:50:14 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:
>
>> If we are to create a bridi relative clause (like e.g. {so'o'oi} in
>>> selmaho SEI) it should also incorporates such "comments" as {so'o'oi mi
>>> xusra se'u}.
>>>
>>>
>> Do you mean that the bridi relative clause should also be copied over, if
>> we were to allocate a SEI for bridi relative clauses? I don't really
>> understand what you're saying here.
>>
>
> I'm not proposing anything. I'm just asking. Should bridi relative clause
> be copied or not?
>

I don't *think* that they should be copied, but until we have collected
usage of bridi relative clauses, I can't really make up my mind.
(Constructing artificial examples isn't the best way to go about this.)

If we allow them to be copied, they how do we go about overwriting them?
This same question applies to sumtcita as well, however, so I'm not sure.


> Oh, and what about {to ... toi} ? They are also not copied, right? Or they
> are copied but {to'i ... toi} is not copied?
>
>
I definitely think that to...toi should *not* be copied. There's no point
in restating the contents of the parenthetical remark.

e.g. A: .i lo mi mamta (to ri carmi co jai fanza mi caze'aca vau ta'o toi)
cu jdice lo du'u vo'a mi dunda be lo rupnu be li reno jdini
B: ua .i go'i ra'o zo'e ne ku'i li cimu
"A: My mother (she's really been annoying me these days) decided to give me
twenty dollars.
B: Ah, mine too (give me money, that is), but thirty-five dollars."

In this case, the to...toi is conveniently not copied, because B doesn't
want to state that B's mother has been annoying him/her these days. If B
did want to state that, they they could easily add {to lo me mi moi cu
simsa vau .oi}. If copying were default, then it would become necessary to
explicitly negate the copied parenthetical remark.

.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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--089e015387dc20bfcc04dfd70384
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">On 23 June 2013 14:29, la arxokuna <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<=
a href=3D"mailto:gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gleki.is.my.=
name@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote">

<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Sunday, June 23, 2013 9:50:14 PM UTC+4, t=
sani wrote:<br><div class=3D"im"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail=
_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:=
1ex"><div>If we are to create a bridi relative clause (like e.g. {so&#39;o&=
#39;oi} in selmaho SEI) it should also incorporates such &quot;comments&quo=
t; as {so&#39;o&#39;oi mi xusra se&#39;u}.</div>


<div><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Do you mean that the bridi =
relative clause should also be copied over, if we were to allocate a SEI fo=
r bridi relative clauses? I don&#39;t really understand what you&#39;re say=
ing here.</div>

</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>I&#39;m not propos=
ing anything. I&#39;m just asking. Should bridi relative clause be copied o=
r not?</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don&#39;t *think* that they =
should be copied, but until we have collected usage of bridi relative claus=
es, I can&#39;t really make up my mind. (Constructing artificial examples i=
sn&#39;t the best way to go about this.)</div>

<div><br></div><div>If we allow them to be copied, they how do we go about =
overwriting them? This same question applies to sumtcita as well, however, =
so I&#39;m not sure.</div><div>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" s=
tyle=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

<div>Oh, and what about {to ... toi} ? They are also not copied, right? Or =
they are copied but {to&#39;i ... toi} is not copied?</div><div class=3D"im=
"><div><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I definitely think =
that to...toi should *not* be copied. There&#39;s no point in restating the=
 contents of the parenthetical remark.</div>

<div><br></div><div>e.g. A: .i lo mi mamta (to ri carmi co jai fanza mi caz=
e&#39;aca vau ta&#39;o toi) cu jdice lo du&#39;u vo&#39;a mi dunda be lo ru=
pnu be li reno jdini</div><div>B: ua .i go&#39;i ra&#39;o zo&#39;e ne ku=
9;i li cimu</div>

<div>&quot;A: My mother (she&#39;s really been annoying me these days) deci=
ded to give me twenty dollars.</div><div>B: Ah, mine too (give me money, th=
at is), but thirty-five dollars.&quot;</div><div><br></div><div>In this cas=
e, the to...toi is conveniently not copied, because B doesn&#39;t want to s=
tate that B&#39;s mother has been annoying him/her these days. If B did wan=
t to state that, they they could easily add {to lo me mi moi cu simsa vau .=
oi}. If copying were default, then it would become necessary to explicitly =
negate the copied parenthetical remark.</div>

<div>=A0</div><div>.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">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</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 />

--089e015387dc20bfcc04dfd70384--