Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400e:c02::233 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400e:c02::233;
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 12:04:14 +0100
Message-ID: <CACf3dPniWPENbiHT=EsTHGTApOOx5duQgo5SxZevF=FM7jUnqg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [lojban] {da poi} (was: Re: tersmu 0.2
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
To: 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=047d7bfea42251d94105041e1c3c
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--047d7bfea42251d94105041e1c3c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 28 Sep 2014 02:34, "Martin Bays" <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> the compositionality
> of restrictive clauses (which admittedly is already broken in some other
> cases, e.g. {da poi broda}).

I agree {da poi} looks broken. What are the remedies? (1) To allow
noncompositional idioms? (2) To define /poi/ as an allomorph of /noi/ in
this syntactic environment? (3) To accept that, given the internal logic of
the language, {da poi} as habitually used is simply wrong? (4) To seek and
find a consistent definition for {poi} and {noi} such that {da poi} usage
becomes correct?

--And.

-- 
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.

--047d7bfea42251d94105041e1c3c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On 28 Sep 2014 02:34, &quot;Martin Bays&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mbays@s=
df.org">mbays@sdf.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; the compositionality<br>
&gt; of restrictive clauses (which admittedly is already broken in some oth=
er<br>
&gt; cases, e.g. {da poi broda}). </p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I agree {da poi} looks broken. What are the remedies? (1) To=
 allow noncompositional idioms? (2) To define /poi/ as an allomorph of /noi=
/ in this syntactic environment? (3) To accept that, given the internal log=
ic of the language, {da poi} as habitually used is simply wrong? (4) To see=
k and find a consistent definition for {poi} and {noi} such that {da poi} u=
sage becomes correct?</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">--And.</p>

<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 <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<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/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

--047d7bfea42251d94105041e1c3c--