X-Digest-Num: 82
Message-ID: <44114.82.498.959273824@eGroups.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 22:00:36 -0500
From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@lojban.org>
Subject: Re: lo lunra selgusni ninmu
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 498
Content-Length: 2125
Lines: 55

>From: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
>la lojbab. cusku di'e
>> >I suppose that {mi ba'oku klama le zarci} is the same as
>> >{mi ba'o klama le zarci} and not {mi ba'o zo'e klama le zarci}, right?
>> 
>> I hesitate to say, because John and I have answered the question before,
>> and it might even be in the Book.  My interpretation barring John saying
>> otherwise, however, would be that the ku form presumes the ellipsized
>> sumti.
>
>No, actually the Codex Woldemar does say otherwise: tense+KU is equivalent
>to tense+selbri, no matter whether it is before the selbri or not:
>they are explicitly declared so at the beginning of Section 10.12.

Fine.  I defer to the Codex.  I figured you had said it somewhere.

>> The paradigm that had us add puku for example was originally that
>> of ellipsized sumti, and not as a semantics-free transformational grammar
>> maneuver.  It just was convenient and logical to make puku adjacent to the
>> selbri be equivalent to pu in the selbri.  But I think that
>> transformability need not be so for ba'o.
>
>Perhaps it should not have been so, but it is so as of today.

Either/or, doesn't much matter - I argued only from history in case you had
not said anything.  You said it; the Book is baselined.

>> I know that in support of the compounding interpretation, there were some
>> things that could not be said with a single tenseconstruct because
>> ungrammatical, which John said would be expressed using two consecutive
>> tenses.  For example,
>> 
>> mi baki ne'iki klama
>
>This whole example is rather pointless, I think, unless the ki's
>are subscripted, because the second ki will override the first,
>so this is the same as bane'iki.

Hey, it's the same as your example 14.1).

>> It was a late modification that John made that allowed both orders to be
>> possible without a ku.
>
>Basically requiring fe'e to flag *every* TAhE, ROI, or ZAhO that
>was about space eliminated the ambiguity.  (Previously a fe'e
>was needed to *separate* time and space interval qualifiers,
>which meant they had to be in a fixed order.)

Ah, now I remember.

lojbab