From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:59:23 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Received: (qmail 24873 invoked from network); 22 Nov 1996 13:36:37 -0000 Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (192.36.125.6) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 22 Nov 1996 13:36:37 -0000 Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <14.07B0066C@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 14:36:37 +0100 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... X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1798 Lines: 40 Message-ID: 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