Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #14) id m0pAiaQ-0000PbC; Fri, 17 Dec 93 19:03 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5722; Fri, 17 Dec 93 19:03:47 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 5721; Fri, 17 Dec 1993 19:03:46 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2808; Fri, 17 Dec 1993 18:02:44 +0100 Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 16:59:26 GMT Reply-To: Colin Fine Sender: Lojban list From: Colin Fine Subject: le mi'o matlygai To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1743 Lines: 57 +++++++> i le mi'o matlygai Now, I gloss "matlygai" as "linen+cover" which must be something like "sheet", and it's a brivla. I also translate "mi'o" as "you and me" which is a sumti, so I get "mi'o matlygai" as a selbri made by attaching "mi'o" in the x1 place of "matlygai". That doesn't exactly make sense to me. Not knowing what the x1 place really is, my best guess is that it is the x1 place of "cover", but that really doesn't make sense at all. "you & me" is not a cover. Should it be "i le me mi'o matlygai" instead ?? This I translate as "our sheet/cover/whatever", and that makes more sense to me. Or am I completely wrong? >++++++++ It's an abominable kludge that has been in the grammar since before Lojban was invented, for no better reason than that people keep wanting to use it. The relevant rules are (in the BNF form): sumti-5<96> = (LAhE # | NAhE BO #) [relative-clauses] sumti /LUhU#/ | KOhA # | lerfu-string /BOI#/ | LA CMENE ... # | (LA | LE) sumti-tail /KU#/ | LI mex /LOhO#/ | ZO any-word # | LU text /LIhU/ # | LOhU any-word ... LEhU # | ZOI any-word anything any-word # sumti-tail<111> = [sumti-5 [relative-clauses]] sumti-tail-1 | relative-clauses sumti-tail-1 In simple terms these allow le and this is glossed as le pe Thus le mi'o matlygai is defined to mean le matlygai pe mi More familiar forms are expressions like 'le mi zdani' . Interestingly, we quite often get things like 'le mi birka' which is equivalent to 'le birka pe mi' and so less precise than 'le birka be mi'. I suspect that French lojbanists will be inclined to leave out the possessive in such expressions. Colin