From lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Fri Nov 22 22:44:40 1996 Received: from relay-6.mail.demon.net by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA16797 ; Fri, 22 Nov 96 22:44:35 GMT Received: from relay-5.mail.demon.net by mailstore for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk id 848669814:5:16396:0; Fri, 22 Nov 96 13:36:54 GMT Received: from cunyvm.cuny.edu ([128.228.1.2]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa516287; 22 Nov 96 13:36 GMT Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 8564; Fri, 22 Nov 96 08:36:14 EST Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 6261; Fri, 22 Nov 96 08:36:01 EDT Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 13:32:52 GMT+0 Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: place switching cmavo... To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Message-ID: <848669791.516287.0@cunyvm.cuny.edu> Status: R Mark: > >From: Chris A Bogart > >On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, R.M. Uittenbogaard wrote: > >> I always thought the places were numbered subsequently, and > >> > >> fo le dargu cu klama fa mi do lemi zdani le karce > >> > >> meant that "le karce" occupies the x4 place as well, which makes > >> it equal in meaning to: > >> > >> mi klama do lemi zdani le dargu .e le karce , or > >> mi klama do lemi zdani le dargu fo le karce > >> > >> So instead, filled places are skipped for subsequent sumti? > >I think you're right and Lojbab is mistaken on this one, but > >I don't have my references here at work to look it up. > > > >I seem to remember a discussion on this where someone suggested > >that (to use your example) le karce and le dargu would act > >like appositives, supposedly naming the same thing (and I > >forget the cmavo which would do this directly: po'u? no'u? > >something like that maybe...) > > Sorry for the long quote and short addition, but it was all relevant. > > So far as I remember, it was undefined/semantic error to do something like > "la djan. klama fa la jil. fe le zdani" or otherwise try to cram two sumti > into one place with no appropriate explanation (e.g. conjunction or > something). What would "le klama be fa la djan." mean? "John, the comer?" > Hmm. It sounds like it should be a semantics error: if two things are the > same, use po'u/no'u. If they both came, use .e/joi/etc. Is it > semantically legal to do this kind of thing? (I know it's syntactically > okay). I seem to recall John pronouncing on this and declaring that a "twice-filled" sumti place is to be interpreted as though the fillers were conjoined by {e}. Prior to this pronouncement, Mark's version is correct: it was deemed gobbledygook. --- And