From MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com Thu Oct 21 04:43:58 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 21 Oct 2004 04:44:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-m19.mx.aol.com ([64.12.137.11]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CKbM6-0007jR-P2 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 04:43:43 -0700 Received: from MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com by imo-m19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r3.8.) id d.1d5.2d345104 (4340) for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 07:43:05 -0400 (EDT) From: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com Message-ID: <1d5.2d345104.2ea8fac9@wmconnect.com> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 07:43:05 EDT Subject: [lojban] ba'e phrase To: lojban-list@lojban.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_1d5.2d345104.2ea8fac9_boundary" X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 12 X-archive-position: 8822 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --part1_1d5.2d345104.2ea8fac9_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2004-10-21 5:21:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ecartis@digitalkingdom.org writes: > --- Martin Bays wrote: > > {le ba'e mi speni}, {ba'e le mi speni} and {le mi ba'e speni} > > correspond > > respectively to "*my* wife", "*my wife*" and "my *wife*". > > {le ba'e mi speni} and {le mi ba'e speni}, yes. > > But {ba'e le mi speni} doesn't really have a direct correspondence > in English. It's more like "*the* wife of mine". {ba'e} emphasizes > the very next word, not the following phrase. Since the > distinguishing feature of {le} is specificity, that's what {ba'e} > would be emphasizing here: not just any old wife of mine but *the* > one(s) I have in mind. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > How would one emphasize the whole phrase then? Using parentheses? Yuck. stevo --part1_1d5.2d345104.2ea8fac9_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 2004-10-21 5:21:25=20= AM Eastern Daylight Time, ecartis@digitalkingdom.org writes:


--- Martin Bays wrote:
> {le ba'e mi speni}, {ba'e le mi speni} and {le mi ba'e speni}
> correspond
> respectively to "*my* wife", "*my wife*" and "my *wife*".

{le ba'e mi speni} and {le mi ba'e speni}, yes.

But {ba'e le mi speni} doesn't really have a direct correspondence
in English. It's more like "*the* wife of mine". {ba'e} emphasizes=20
the very next word, not the following phrase. Since the=20
distinguishing feature of {le} is specificity, that's what {ba'e}=20
would be emphasizing here: not just any old wife of mine but *the*=20
one(s) I have in mind.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


How would one emphasize the whole phrase then?  Using parentheses?=20=  Yuck.

stevo --part1_1d5.2d345104.2ea8fac9_boundary--