Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::231 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c00::231;
Message-ID: <54523459.3080700@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 13:51:37 +0100
From: Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2
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> <20141030014348.GP4023@gonzales>
In-Reply-To: <20141030014348.GP4023@gonzales>
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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -


On 30/10/2014 02:43, Martin Bays wrote:
>
>> A sumtcita =E2=86=94 bridi relative clause conversion table could look l=
ike the
>> below:
>>
>> 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.
What's wrong with {broda xoi ke'a rapli li no} =E2=86=92 {lo nu broda cu ra=
pli=20
li no}?

>
>> Furthermore, {ba} and {pu} are irregular sumtcita, in that their
>> 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 =
cu brodo
>> }  (irregular ba/pu sumtcita)
>> =E2=80=A2 { brode .ije *ki'u bo* brodo } =3D { brode .ije *se ki'u* lo n=
u go'i cu
>> 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
Yeah, that's the tense / modal difference. As I use only pu/ca/ba in=20
afterthought tag connections, I've forgotten the other tenses were also=20
affected.

mi'e la .ilmen. mu'o


--=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/d/optout.