From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Jun 24 07:26:51 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 24 Jun 2008 07:26:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KB9Tv-0006LU-Mp for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 07:26:51 -0700 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.154]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KB9Tr-0006LH-54 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 07:26:51 -0700 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id e12so1252745fga.0 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 07:26:46 -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=ZHW1vO9b9ZjgwGbgw+7V4NIQ7WNrCHcRTm0HpRp0jO8=; b=TSLFLbAL83yzWYaxetOy5pPX3NwqrBJq8QFmPd01wpRFvG//wpIypdSRviDEjPKPFE vfCkT7CxSSabaK98fkno3yZC54LMi5pHdfH1+/cQsIIvXUwpUgG25XnlEeITkAx2Jw46 gY+BuBH8I5Au3B1xUX9x0IRuW6oBFP15CI1Uo= 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=LUIv29gmpvNBOGNiJt1QWeGeAgqF/ggQDhppkO8ym9d/++fXBwWdHdU2SjcubR+/qj PX3BWhzCl1DsFhOKgpqN506DkCZBzmBNvpnYskCwjzf6z87hnsXbeACt1zAIzoksqHe4 OsewAyIakjE1P6bI8Pl1FrI9Lr3FyXBxrKaW4= Received: by 10.86.73.3 with SMTP id v3mr8990379fga.68.1214317605218; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 07:26:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.89.11 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 07:26:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560806240726v7afa4264v64f2ded4d488f172@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:26:45 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: sentence initial indicators In-Reply-To: <12d58c160806240650g471e025dr9e8d4c7f27bc22d2@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <737b61f30806240039m5067fbf3ycc1c962aba036b59@mail.gmail.com> <12d58c160806240650g471e025dr9e8d4c7f27bc22d2@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 14549 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 6/24/08, komfo,amonan wrote: > > I'm guessing the rationale is that it doesn't make sense to tightly bind a > sentences across a paragraph/topic boundary. Presumably {ni'o ba bo} would tightly bind two paragraphs, not just two sentences. There are grammatical ways of doing it: tu'e ni'o .... tu'u .i ba bo tu'e ni'o ..... tu'u But this way you have to plan ahead and it's more wordy. > If you want to bind two > sentences, the second one is probably not a new topic. Does it match a {ba > bo broda} at the start of a text? I think the {babo} construction is not normally really used to bind tightly, as it's suposed to be, but to connect two sentences with {ba}. {ba} is the critical word in the usage, not {bo}. Similarly for other tag-bo's. The problem is that it can't be done unless you also bind tightly, and from the point of view of the grammar {bo} is the more critical word. One way would be to use {ba la'e di'u} or {ba ku} instead, but the first is too long and the second is somewhat vague. {la'e di'u} should have been a single short cmavo, based on its very frequent use. 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.