From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue May 27 07:10:11 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 27 May 2008 07:10:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K0zsQ-0002LD-VD for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 27 May 2008 07:10:11 -0700 Received: from ik-out-1112.google.com ([66.249.90.177]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K0zsK-0002Kh-IS for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 27 May 2008 07:10:10 -0700 Received: by ik-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id c21so1365938ika.2 for ; Tue, 27 May 2008 07:10:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=/RVkpdyvW0wK1E3Mo4OV9hfF2yKezwsw/bm5INfLRCg=; b=hVV1fH7SCdXFsyh3edvbGZ8l8ts0dUOIESRVU7zXjtwEwayf29ZcxzQ2WDPOzcS4AV5FLYfIQZ2P6PS3VtXxacCHFAQMk1ieq3pCNvZvppvGuTXCl4gpYEma5QzFsxteCPlQodKFDw0ontyU3bau22am3pGI8ZD7ORYfZ/f3qdk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Bddy2IS3KvqI5v25YDV0fMwsH2Up3S1IStpFEeViT+QqkRIw0PvWbnQTURAiRfFPO1JU7a5YUJe+z4hBjBRo5n/ezfM9VOLu1b/ZBoaMsfW6yA0OLGhj5AG+qTOpQyLLPzbEM5gOTgwT8c4W5+KCKiRvGaJhlrKnf+FhKsNB+dk= Received: by 10.86.89.1 with SMTP id m1mr3180133fgb.45.1211897402318; Tue, 27 May 2008 07:10:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.33.18 with HTTP; Tue, 27 May 2008 07:10:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560805270710q11038308v1e031ab0aa73a8dd@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 11:10:02 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Why's there no ka abstraction for nelci? In-Reply-To: <200805271524.57754.eldrikdo@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200805271524.57754.eldrikdo@gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 14439 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 5/27/08, nam wrote: > > I was wondering why no ka abstraction for nelci exists. There aren't really any answers to "why" questions about place structures. Many place structures were inherited directly from Loglan and many were modified, but there wasn't usually any systematic treatment. > {mi nelci do le ka melbi} > > {mi nelci le skina le ka cinri pluja} Those are in fact grammatical, and more or less equivalent to: {mi nelci do do'e le ka melbi} {mi nelci le skina do'e le ka cinri pluja} It is always possible to add sumti in undefined places, and the meaning in this case would probably be understood just as you want it (at least I can't think of any other interpretation). > It's nelci's similarity to cnino making me think it would be be nice to have a > ka x3 for nelci. I would say {pluka} is more similar to {cnino}, because of the order object-observer. {mansa}, {melbi}, {trina} are other similar examples. The x3 properties in these are properties of the x1, while for {nelci} it would be a property of the x2. In general, I think it would be preferrable to have less places defined rather than more. For example, using: {le skina cu pluka mi lo ka cinri pluja} is somewhat awkward because of that "under conditions" place defined for {pluka}. Why {pluka} has an "under conditions x3" place rather than a "because of property x3" place is another of those unanswerable questions. mu'o mi'e xorxes 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.