Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 13324 invoked from network); 2 May 2000 22:39:40 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 2 May 2000 22:39:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 1167 invoked by uid 40001); 2 May 2000 22:40:17 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 1164 invoked from network); 2 May 2000 22:40:17 -0000 Received: from ml.egroups.com (208.50.144.77) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 2 May 2000 22:40:17 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2500-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.38] by ml.egroups.com with NNFMP; 02 May 2000 23:40:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 25249 invoked from network); 2 May 2000 22:40:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 2 May 2000 22:40:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO qg.egroups.com) (10.1.2.27) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 May 2000 22:40:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 11325 invoked from network); 2 May 2000 22:40:12 -0000 Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (205.188.157.38) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 2 May 2000 22:40:12 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id a.3a.492f253 (4358) for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 18:40:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3a.492f253.2640b347@aol.com> To: lojban@egroups.com X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows sub 33 From: pycyn@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@egroups.com; contact lojban-owner@egroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@egroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 18:40:07 EDT Subject: [lojban] Well, at least it won't get in my crotch Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1917 Lines: 36 xorxes: <> pc: And I took it to be a reply to my question about how to understand an observative in this context, namely that thepredication was to apply to the earlier cited sentence (well, utterance, in fact): Rhetorical question had been the idea (of using {paunaixu}). I tend to take the whole exchange as an argument for not dropping x1-- in these kinds of exchanges anyhow,where there are often several applicable anaphora (not that 'a recent remark' or the like helps much). xorxes: <> pc: Well, I suggested {ve skicu} in this case, but that was only on the fly. What gets modified in grammatical modification? In the clearest cases, tanru, it is the referent of the modified to the referent of the complex and I guess that can be generalized for subject predicate modification (from the referent of the subject to a truth value or event involving that referent) and so on. But I think there must be a more natural word that {galfi} to deal with these relations in Lojban in Lojban. pc: I still have some of the intensional notion of the perfective in my mind, so when I read the {ba'o} I took it to mean (once i had figured out what the rest of the sentence was about) that that was the idea when it was written and that the effect of that idea persisted, in aprticular that the intension was that I (and other readers) take it that way. (It is BTW rather clever -- if we are to mark rhetorical questions, always -- like sarcasm -- a problem). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Life's too short to send boring email. Let SuperSig come to the rescue. http://click.egroups.com/1/3805/2/_/17627/_/957307213/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com