Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::234 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::234;
Message-ID: <53E78584.6090208@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 16:45:24 +0200
From: Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] CLL Corrections
References: <1a05ebdb-5a99-4382-b6a3-4205d1d16ae6@googlegroups.com> <CAO7tK2d=qyqZtckEezU8zdxYVB07661+-gGSLo1YYKDH-MXJ0w@mail.gmail.com> <857775fe-c38f-4e84-b3b9-17034a98a989@googlegroups.com> <CAKOEKkQjsdhkaQHz2hFhOup9PWhLXMVAYoNS04m=w7w-kBSPew@mail.gmail.com> <bdc5c32c-98df-45c9-8c16-210d4c09a9c0@googlegroups.com> <036a8ae9-4a0b-455c-b014-0b1a97e37d62@googlegroups.com> <20140807124944.GI28465@samsa.fritz.box> <1fa41501-809e-4157-aee4-777215596290@googlegroups.com> <20140807134047.GK28465@samsa.fritz.box> <e86517cd-fb2f-4030-ace9-e16b99b457bc@googlegroups.com> <20140807165332.GL28465@samsa.fritz.box> <CAOQ8VDUpFrb_FrEqurTZANxfXWKiOtoqgvUAkEa5__w_nHTmqA@mail.gmail.com> <bc7b7367-20f2-4bc9-912f-15896c9dc1aa@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <bc7b7367-20f2-4bc9-912f-15896c9dc1aa@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: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed


On 09/08/2014, TR NS wrote:
> Ah, ok. That at least makes sense.  My "gut" sort of revolts at this 
> ambiguity though --I mean there is no way to designate a sumti in a 
> sentence while being ambiguous about exactly which slot it is filling, 
> is there? So it's seems odd to me that one could do that in a 
> subordinate clause. But in any case, at least that explanation makes 
> sense. It would be good if the LLC made that clear --adding your very 
> words, in fact, would have helped me understand that section much better.

You can say {fa xi xo'e mi klama} for expressing a relation {klama} 
among whose sumti there's {mi}, although which sumti slot it fills is 
left unspecified. {mi jai nu klama} ("I am involved in an event of 
going") is also a possibility for achieving a similar effect.

As for which place a hidden {ke'a} fills in a realtive clause, I always 
assume it fills the first empty tersu'i (sumti slot).
Having it filling an unspecified place by default would force to use 
{ke'a} much of the times if you want to be precise, adding two more 
syllables to the relative clause.

I don't recall having ever wanted to left which tersu'i a ke'a fills to 
context, and in the rare case where you would want to do so, you can 
resort to {do'e} or {fi xi xo'e}, so in my humble opinion always 
assuming it fills the first empty tersu'i makes things clearer and often 
saves you a couple of syllables.

mu'o mi'e la .ilmen.


-- 
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/d/optout.