From lojbab Fri Dec 16 15:40:07 1994 Received: from access2.digex.net by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA18854 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Fri, 16 Dec 1994 15:40:03 -0500 Received: by access2.digex.net id AA29131 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for lojbab); Fri, 16 Dec 1994 15:39:32 -0500 From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199412162039.AA29131@access2.digex.net> Subject: Esperanto word order (was: Q-kau) To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 15:39:31 -0500 (EST) Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group) In-Reply-To: <199412160054.AA23785@nfs1.digex.net> from "jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU" at Dec 15, 94 02:54:57 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24beta] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1012 Status: RO la xorxes. cusku di'e > Cxiu amas iun. > Everybody loves somebody. > > Iun amas cxiu. > Everybody loves somebody. > > Iu estas amata de cxiu. > Somebody is loved by everybody. > > De cxiu estas amata iu. > By everybody, somebody is loved. > > And you can make more combinations. To me it seems that the difference in > scope is handled by using the participle, like English does, but you can > still play with the word order. My reading of this is that the surface order of sumti doesn't matter, whereas the presence or absence of a "se" conversion does matter. This is precisely the notion you say "would be really confusing, and [you] don't see the point of it" in response to Lojbab. Now admittedly, > Esperanto certainly does not claim to reflect predicate logic. but what's sauce for one might well have some piquancy for the other, no? -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.