Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 11313 invoked from network); 1 May 2000 19:26:42 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 1 May 2000 19:26:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 3297 invoked by uid 40001); 1 May 2000 19:27:06 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 3294 invoked from network); 1 May 2000 19:27:05 -0000 Received: from hm.egroups.com (208.50.144.92) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 1 May 2000 19:27:05 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2486-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.36] by hm.egroups.com with NNFMP; 01 May 2000 19:27:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 9712 invoked from network); 1 May 2000 19:27:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 May 2000 19:27:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.52) by mta3 with SMTP; 1 May 2000 19:27:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 52516 invoked by uid 0); 1 May 2000 19:27:02 -0000 Message-ID: <20000501192702.52515.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.41.247.60 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 01 May 2000 12:27:02 PDT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.60] To: lojban@egroups.com From: "Jorge Llambias" 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: Mon, 01 May 2000 12:27:02 PDT Subject: Re: [lojban] re: nazycau gerku and najyzme Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1812 Lines: 44 la pycyn cusku di'e >Sure, but in this case, the sentence was NOT modified and the author (I've >forgotten who in all the layers of >>) seemed to be shooting for the >grammatical/semantical notion. I think the author was Invent Yourself, and I suspect we interpreted his sentence differently. I understood he was responding to your question about the perfective in observatives. I'm not sure you understood the same thing, otherwise I don't understand why you say the sentence was not modified. To me, {le jufra} was any sentence modified by the perfective marker, or else the particular sentence that called your attention, also modified by the perfective marker. Isn't the grammatical/semantical notion of modification a kind of {nu galfi}? If not, what should we use for it? > And the first place of {galfi} still is >supposed to be an agent, isn't it, the means coming in later? >[Quick check: no, though agent seems recommended; means are not mentioned] The definition is somewhat contradictory. It asks for an event in x1 but it also asserts that it is agentive. (And if it's an event, then we're back to the rinka discussion, why couldn't it be just any object?) co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Would you like to save big on your phone bill -- and keep on saving more each month? Join beMANY! Our huge buying group gives you Long Distance rates which fall monthly, plus an extra $60 in FREE calls! http://click.egroups.com/1/2567/2/_/17627/_/957209223/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com