From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Jan 09 04:47:15 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 09 Jan 2006 04:47:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1EvwPc-0005sL-Iw for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 09 Jan 2006 04:46:15 -0800 Received: from eastrmmtao01.cox.net ([68.230.240.38]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1EvwPG-0005s1-4k for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 09 Jan 2006 04:46:07 -0800 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (really [24.250.99.39]) by eastrmmtao01.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20060109124409.SMHO4894.eastrmmtao01.cox.net@[127.0.0.1]> for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2006 07:44:09 -0500 Message-ID: <43C25AF8.2050102@lojban.org> Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 07:45:44 -0500 From: Bob LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: stage 1 and 2 non-fu'ivla References: <20060105063129.GY3931@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <43C06EED.5010501@lojban.org> <925d17560601080731t6b8d0742h26f87aa35292f1b6@mail.gmail.com> <200601081311.40773.phma@phma.hn.org> In-Reply-To: <200601081311.40773.phma@phma.hn.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11019 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Pierre Abbat wrote: >>The ma'oste definition of {me} would give "x1 is specific to the word >>'spaghetti' in aspect x2", which is not all that clear what it means. > > I take {me} in type-1 and type-2 fu'ivla to be merely a syntactic word turning > a sumti into a selbri, whose place structure can be anything. Correct in the first part as to my intent - the ma'oste does specify the place structure though, and loose undefined place structures are uncool - we have BAI and fi'o constructs to solve that. >{ti me la > ko'oc. la xekri} "This is black cohosh" (different colors of cohosh are > completely unrelated, so I don't think I'd use that word for a type 3 or 4). ti xekri me la ko'hoc. would seem better to me. If you were talking about the color, then leka skari would go in the x2. > {mi me la'o gy. Virginia reel .gy. lo damryjgita} "I do the Virginia reel to > the banjo". I understand that as saying that you ARE a "Virginia reel", banjo-ly. mi me la'o gy. Virginia reel .gy. dansu lo damryjgita Or mi dansu zgike be lo damryjgita tai la'o gy. Virginia reel .gy. {le damba cu me ky.obu le bradi} "The fighter KOed the opponent". That one would technically work for me with a fi to push le bradi after the aspect place, though I still would prefer a tag, especially since it would be an equally valid "borrowing" to say "le bradi cu me ky.obu ri'a tu'a le damba. "knocked out" being both a transitive verb and a stative adjective applying to the object of that verb afterwards. lojbab To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.