Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 19:19:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711160019.TAA25442@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Thanatos Sender: Lojban list From: Thanatos Subject: Re: `at least one ' vrs `one or more' X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1978 X-From-Space-Date: Sat Nov 15 19:19:07 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS >la erik cusku di'e >>zu'o go'i cu nu mi do'o xlura le za'i fengu >>That activity (the previous selbri) is an event of me luring you all >>into an state anger. >>That's trolling. :) >> >>Dare I ask if that was grammatical? > >Almost. You're missing a {le} or some other gadri at the >start of the sentence. I realized that scant moments after I sent it. >As a matter of style, I prefer to use {nu} rather than {zu'o} or >{za'i}, because I feel that these don't add anything to the >meaning of the sentence and they just complicate it, so >I would suggest: {le nu go'i cu nu mi do'o xlura le nu fengu}. >But this is strictly style, and just my personal peeve. Others >may and certainly do opine differently. This was mostly an excercise in playing with chapter 15(?). In this case more specificity wasn't really needed, I agree. >Another point is that if And is right about nu's being things >that happen only, then the x3 of xlura should not take a nu >(or any of its subsidiaries). I think the x3 should be the >property {ka} into which x2 is lured. Ah. Actual events as opposed to possible/category-of events? How far is the abstraction, in other words, from relationship to an instance/occurance of that relationship, or from relationship to a category of hypothetical events? Is that the root of the discussion? [sorry I came in late.] I grepped the reference grammar to no avail. How does one speak of hypothetical entities? That-which-doesn't-exist-but-for-discussion-is a whatever. For example, "A duck walks into a bar" {le datka cu cadzu le kafybarja}. I'm not talking about a real duck. I'm not even calling a real object a duck. Could {le datka} refer to my non-existant, hypothetical duck? If so, then {le nu} could be a non-existant, hypothetical event, no? >Finally, why is {le nu go'i} a {nu xlura} rather than a {ve xlura}? Because I hadn't thought of that. :) -- Erik W. Cornilsen