Return-Path: From: cbmvax!uunet!math.ucla.edu!jimc Return-Path: Message-Id: <9107100439.AA26978@sonia.math.ucla.edu> To: lojban-list@snark.thyrsus.com Subject: BAI links to what In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 01 Jul 91 15:14:07 +1000." <9107010514.AA16800@munagin.ee.mu.OZ.AU> Date: Tue, 09 Jul 91 21:39:09 -0700 Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Wed Jul 10 13:28:33 1991 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!math.ucla.edu!jimc > Nick still catching up: (and jimc still catching up) > ... The analysis is needed to > show why some omissions of {ne/pe} are nonsensical. Hands up all those > who treated {be'i} as a true sumtcita dangling in the sentence, instead > of sticking it next to the sent thing {lo se benji}. > > ... I find gold with a metal detector, {be'i la djan.}. What did john > send - the gold, the detector, or me? be'i needs a ne/pe link, and ... mi kalte lo solji sepi'o le jimkatbra be be'i la djan. I hunt gold using metaldetector *glue* sent-by John A phrase is a tagged sumti just as if fe, fi, etc. had been used, and as such it sticks to the main bridi if not glued (as with sepi'o here), or to a s-bridi if be or bei appears, as with be'i here. Thus, unambiguously, it was the device that was sent by John. I can understand using "ne" as an abbreviation for a clause with noi, like this: ... le jimkatbra be ne be'i la djan. the device *glue* *supplementary* sent-by john ... le jimkatbra noi se benji la djan. the device *suppl.clause* was sent by John --although pc has pounded into my head over and over that it's more in the spirit of Lojban to use the subordinate clause in preference to just about any other structure. In contrast, specified description (sumti glued to sumti) is restrictive and so I don't see why one might use "pe" in this pattern -- I suspect it's merely symmetry in the grammar. An aside: See the pretty diklujvo above, jimkatbra? Lojbab has challenged me whether live users really interpret diklujvo right, without having memorized the rules. So: I'd appreciate (I guess by direct reply rather than on the net) hearing whether people were able to interpret it. Or, if you didn't bother looking up the rafsi, if you would have interpreted correctly the related tanru (jinme kalte) cabra metal hunt apparatus If not, what interpretation did you put on it? Or what ambiguities do you find lurking in the diklujvo (I can see at least two.) The official jimc interpretation is le cabra be lo nu kalte fe lo jinme apparatus for (events of) hunt for metal cabra = x1 is an apparatus for function x2 controlled by x3 kalte = x1 hunts quarry x2 for purpose x3 jinme = x1 is metal of type x2 Reasoning (to be carried out with a snap of the fingers): kalte is an actor-victim kind of word, and jinme is an object kind of word, therefore jinme goes into kalte x2. cabra x2 is naturally inhabited by abstract sumti, so make the pre-term (jinme kalte) abstract and stick it in. -- jimc