From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Wed Jul 30 16:19:15 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:19:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lmsmtp04.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.114]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19i0Dl-0008MT-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:19:01 -0700 Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-54-49.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.54.49]) by lmsmtp04.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 118B347E8B for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 01:18:28 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <013501c356f0$e4f7f120$3f3d0751@oemcomputer> From: "And Rosta" To: References: Subject: [lojban] Re: le duX Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:55:27 +0100 Organization: Livagian Consulate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-archive-position: 6009 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Adam D. Lopresto: > On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, And Rosta wrote: > > > The original question can be reposed as: What fills the gap in the > > following pattern? > > > > go'a-series : ra-series > > broda-series : ko'a-series > > bu'a-series : da-series > > co'e : ??????? > > The answer to that is obviously zo'e. Either that obvious answer is incorrect, or else I have misunderstood the nature of co'e, and posed the question erroneously. zo'e can be replaced by any sumti, indubitably including ke'a and da, and -- perhaps, pending the BF's ruling -- by zi'o. Now, can co'e be replaced by any brivla, such as an unbound bu'a? > So I ask again, what's so terribly wrong with zo'e? The "?????" in the paradigm ranges across all possible referents; the hearer glorks which is intended. zo'e ranges across all possible grammatical sumti -- including referentless ones like da, ce'u, zi'o. The "???" is like English "it". "It moved me" cannot be truthconditionally equivalent to "I moved" (as if "it" = zi'o) or "Everything moved me" (as if "it" = roda). I had assumed that co'e ranges across all possible relations, not across all possible grammatical selbri. But I may be wrong; it may be that co'e is indeed the counterpart of zo'e, in which case the question was wrongly reposed. > That's what's bugging me with this whole conversation. "le du" > instantly raises for me the question "le du ma" and of course the only answer, > since we're missing an argument, is "le du zo'e". So why use le du zo'e > instead of zo'e? Because "le du be zo'e" would rewrite to "le du be da" or "le du be " (i.e. le du poi ke'a du ke'a). "le du" (or le + anything) has a narrower range of possible interpretations than "zo'e". --And.