Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 19:41:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199801220041.TAA16964@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" Sender: Lojban list From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" Subject: Re: Beginner question on sumti construction X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-UIDL: d6f2936646922510e2deb28d39d2c51b X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 959 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Jan 22 12:19:31 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - la rik cusku di'e >Jorge wrote: {le nuzba be le mi nunmorsi cu dukse} >I thought that the purpose of {be} to avoid putting {ku} at the end of >the sumti, although it also seemed unnecessary. But leaving off the >{be} causes {le nuzba} and {le mi nunmorsi} to parse as separate >arguments. Right. You can't drop {be}, whether or not you use {ku}. >Is the only way to put arguments into a descriptive sumti to use {be}? Yes. >But then, tell me why this parses correctly: >{i la'a le nu la caryn. ba ctuca loi verba cu zvati le ckule} >"Probably, Sharon will teach children at a school" Why would you expect it not to parse? Remember that nu takes a full bridi after it, so loi verba is not an argument of the description selbri {nu}, it's an argument of {ctuca}, which is the selbri of a full bridi. >(my first attempt at a lojban sentence of any worth) >Yeah, go ahead and correct me on it :-) No corrections from me this time... :) co'o mi'e xorxes