From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Mar 21 06:25:29 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 21 Mar 2006 06:25:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FLhnK-0001zt-G9 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 06:25:10 -0800 Received: from web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.118]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FLhnJ-0001zk-Bi for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 06:25:10 -0800 Received: (qmail 97745 invoked by uid 60001); 21 Mar 2006 14:25:02 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=4MM9xvJ/hYH26xd4Aq7JV/kjqtn+Ksw5AhnVCQTqa0oOK/ubR84xRdCQVfXZZFZQveEquoQGfvnVUmtoTY5agfs5sccich+GOUqFj1wy1+WqOXcKWzgBK7eqCpLVGmu1T0RQQPtBz11gDfDI0R3r9P6JtoClW1H4bl87NQlQPr4= ; Message-ID: <20060321142502.97743.qmail@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.230.183.14] by web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 06:25:02 PST Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 06:25:02 -0800 (PST) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: sumti with relative clause To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <20060321170502.R49527@mail.sksys.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-archive-position: 11195 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Insofar as Lojban follows Logic (and I think it does here), a relative clauses attaches to the shortest complete sumti preceding, in this case to {la djil}. To attach to {ro na'ebo la djil}, that sumti would have to be completed, in this case by whatever closes off this sort of sumti {ku}?) before the {noi}. --- Cyril Slobin wrote: > coi rodo > > Playing jboselkei, I was to comment the > translation containing {ro > nae'bo la djil noi zutse}. I am in doubt > whether {noi zutse} applies > only to {la djil} (as author of translation > assumes) or to the whole > sumti {ro na'ebo la djil} (as I guess)? Jbofi'e > output is opaque. > > Which version is correct? > > co'o mi'e kir > > -- > Cyril Slobin > > > 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. > > 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.