Received: from mail-fa0-f56.google.com ([209.85.161.56]:58406) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1W0M55-00011n-B7 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 18:07:55 -0800 Received: by mail-fa0-f56.google.com with SMTP id m1sf1639341fam.1 for ; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 18:07:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=mwNu3XWPTp+XOstcvrgUYT/xZFl3hv4GCt7FuQ+n6Zw=; b=yQvC+9EoyLpL/CpqZ8P2A6IdoXfE+PBAdacs/OpBjefEq5oDdqmZcRjrVtjicsI9bQ 9pGnBtxMmZQeq1aCwptnV2tPYDKYSRPGM4Usx4DFDWFUFM3m0y0uTwzgQa7WhNUCk3ux QB4+3zaeGa8zTX/Tk8LZzw2OLcUnM0CjkKtfqksX3KZULCatSeGOGSCcp1sY2YNuVfZi UmF9y80u0kPuU77QFtb9SxXx+PbSNWKGfCdpoXLHkN3rKs2EB5mdh4VW7tUZUzwhSF6F zCUz6JKtBza39ra/6CvekDaHgWZcLmuRKzCDNgrrTNPjd2tMrsFoYkqM3hWylb5ZH5s5 1xGA== X-Received: by 10.180.207.5 with SMTP id ls5mr61731wic.10.1389060459451; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 18:07:39 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.105.131 with SMTP id gm3ls546641wib.6.canary; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 18:07:39 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.14.216.131 with SMTP id g3mr41372934eep.2.1389060459069; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 18:07:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-la0-x230.google.com (mail-la0-x230.google.com [2a00:1450:4010:c03::230]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id rk7si8681786bkb.2.2014.01.06.18.07.38 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 06 Jan 2014 18:07:39 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::230 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c03::230; Received: by mail-la0-f48.google.com with SMTP id n7so10415261lam.35 for ; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 18:07:38 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.19.65 with SMTP id c1mr2068170lae.49.1389060458705; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 18:07:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.11.4 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 18:07:38 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <52CB3AC2.3070507@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 00:07:38 -0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] [oz] Use of elidable {cu} From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::230 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com 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: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0149430836762204ef57d71c X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / --089e0149430836762204ef57d71c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis < felipeg.assis@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 6 January 2014 20:36, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > >> >>> lo nu broda pu cinri >>> ! "The event of brodaing in the past is interesting." >>> >> >> Actually it's even worse than that, it's just a sumti: "the brodaing in >> the past type of interesting thing." >> > > I just checked the parse. This completely breaks my mental grammar! > It's weird, I agree. > I feel that the natural place of tenses is just before the selbri, and > anywhere else they ought to be followed by either a sumti or {ku}. It is = so > much simpler to add a {ku} whenever we want an out of place tense. I have > little hope that the grammar be reviewed, but don't you feel the same? > I did propose once that tags should have priority in their function as selbri tags over their function as sumti tags. > It only baffles me more that it works differently for negation. > That's because for some reason it was decided that the "ku" of "na ku" should never be elidable. Am I safe to omit {cu} whenever there is a {na}? > If the selbri starts with "na", yes, but not if it's something like "pu na broda", then the "pu" might still get stolen by some subordinate bridi. mu'o mi'e xorxes --=20 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 e= mail 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. --089e0149430836762204ef57d71c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis = <felipeg.as= sis@gmail.com> wrote:
On= 6 January 2014 20:36, Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
=

=A0 =A0lo nu broda pu cinri
=A0 =A0! "The event of brodaing in the past is interesting."
<= /blockquote>

Actually it&#= 39;s even worse than that, it's just a sumti: "the brodaing in the= past type of interesting thing."=A0

= I just checked the parse. This completely breaks my mental grammar!
<= /div>

It's weird, I agree.<= /div>

=A0
I feel that th= e natural place of tenses is just before the selbri, and anywhere else they= ought to be followed by either a sumti or {ku}. It is so much simpler to a= dd a {ku} whenever we want an out of place tense. I have little hope that t= he grammar be reviewed, but don't you feel the same?

I did propose once= that tags should have priority in their function as selbri tags over their= function as sumti tags.=A0
=A0
It only baffles me more that it works differently for negation.

That's because for some = reason it was decided that the "ku" of "na ku" should n= ever be elidable.

Am I safe to omit {cu} whe= never there is a {na}?

If the selbri star= ts with "na", yes, but not if it's something like "pu na= broda", then the "pu" might still get stolen by some subord= inate bridi.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail 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.
--089e0149430836762204ef57d71c--