Received-SPF: none (google.com: mbays@sdf.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=192.94.73.24;
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 21:43:48 -0400
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2
Message-ID: <20141030014348.GP4023@gonzales>
References: <20141018180946.GF20049@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2dUSzYCWm+CNeNugkeU=aO6mWXSY3gn5dc+8XNU3GpasQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141018233648.GA29040@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2eUqpe3AwAY-DxmONhxM3Pj5kyhTm605bAnD3iJEHVgug@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141021010639.GB11705@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2c+ObFDqF_TZTQMjGJRZfZxpoY-pFB4_canWM3Lpdgvsw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141022002214.GD25753@gonzales>
 <544D68A0.8000402@gmail.com>
 <20141028024248.GB6097@gonzales>
 <544FB6F3.5010301@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="MmQIYbZiCoQ2kDro"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <544FB6F3.5010301@gmail.com>
X-cunselcu'a-valsi: banxa
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16)
X-Original-Sender: mbays@sdf.org
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com;       spf=neutral
 (google.com: mbays@sdf.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) smtp.mail=mbays@sdf.org
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>,
 <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>
X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -


--MmQIYbZiCoQ2kDro
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Tuesday, 2014-10-28 at 16:32 +0100 - Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com>:

> On 28/10/2014 03:42, Martin Bays wrote:
> A sumtcita =E2=86=94 bridi relative clause conversion table could look li=
ke the=20
> below:
>=20
> SE ba X  =3D  xoi ke'a SE balvi X vau
> se pi'o X  =3D  xoi X se pilno fi ke'a vau
> SE ka'a X  =3D  xoi fasnu fa ke'a jo'u lo nu X SE klama vau
> fau X  =3D  xoi fasnu fa ke'a jo'u X vau
> (Here {ke'a} stands for the outer bridi.)

I don't think it's clear that every tag permits such a definition.
e.g. I don't think {no roi} does.

> Furthermore, {ba} and {pu} are irregular sumtcita, in that their=20
> underlying predicate is inversed when they're used with {bo}:
> =E2=80=A2 { brode .ije *ba bo* brodo } =3D { brode .ije *ba* lo nu go'i c=
u brodo=20
> }  (irregular ba/pu sumtcita)
> =E2=80=A2 { brode .ije *ki'u bo* brodo } =3D { brode .ije *se ki'u* lo nu=
 go'i cu=20
> brodo }  (regular sumtcita)

(I don't agree that these are literally equivalences, but probably you
didn't mean to claim that.)

Isn't the difference you're highlighting just the (annoying!) difference
between tenses and other tags in afterthought?

Martin

--MmQIYbZiCoQ2kDro
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlRRl9QACgkQULC7OLX7LNZrmwCfX056jWjQAaZW5RRO72B+fL8X
jvMAoNFeWxLCvkqQartPT81/gs2IJ5uJ
=Nvjm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--MmQIYbZiCoQ2kDro--