Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 15655 invoked from network); 4 May 2000 09:03:18 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 4 May 2000 09:03:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 7574 invoked by uid 40001); 4 May 2000 09:04:02 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 7571 invoked from network); 4 May 2000 09:04:01 -0000 Received: from hk.egroups.com (208.50.144.91) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 4 May 2000 09:04:01 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2517-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.37] by hk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 04 May 2000 09:04:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 10959 invoked from network); 4 May 2000 09:03:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 4 May 2000 09:03:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo19.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.9) by mta3 with SMTP; 4 May 2000 09:03:59 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id a.34.4b13871 (7066) for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 05:03:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <34.4b13871.264296e9@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: Thu, 4 May 2000 05:03:37 EDT Subject: [lojban] So, wait til you feel a cold no-nose Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 3931 Lines: 88 From: jjllambias@hotmail.com (Jorge Llambias) <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). It may well be that in this case there wasn't enough context. But I don't think that not dropping x1 is practical in general. As you say, 'a recent remark' is not that much more helpful. In English you don't really have the choice of not using 'it', and it is short enough that it doesn't get in the way anyway. But in Lojban, when the choice is between {la'e di'u} and nothing, I often go for nothing. Not always, but often.>> Agreed, in practice, but.... (Literalism rears, etc. -- and in this case it would've helped). pc<<>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 I don't think it is the referent, but I'm sure this can be approached from many angles. This is how I'm thinking of it. Suppose we're seeing a black cat. I say: {ta mlatu}. Then you say {ta xekri mlatu}. The referent (the cat we see) has not changed, it has not been modified. It is the reference that has been modified, it has been made more precise in this case.>> Yeah, "referent" is wrong, it has to be "sense," that whereby the referent is identified. But I still find the notion of modification in this literal hammer-and-tongs way inappropriate (I never though about the English usage before). pc<< >(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. I haven't found anything better. {galfi} has already been used this way in previous discussions in Lojban. It wouldn't be surprising that this has been it's main use so far, given the topics of Lojban discussions. But it is certainly worthwhile questioning it and looking for something better.>> Grammatically, X modifies Y just means that X+Y => Z, that together they form a new grammatical unit, whose meaning is a regular function of the meanings of X and Y (the function determined by the rule cited for the analysis). Neither is changed -- or both are -- but the one does not change the other. The places of {jmina} after the agent place look about right. It's easy to add an agent in lojban; how do you drop one? Oops, have to notice order in the full version. << >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. You're describing exactly what his English translation means. I took it that way when I first read it, with the English next to it. I can't say that that is how I would have understood it without that help.>> I suspect (see lojbab's contribution earlier) that it officially means that the whatever of being an idea came to a natural end sometime earlier. Even if the whatever is an achievement (a real possibility here) I don't think it quite works extensionally. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *--- FREE VOICEMAIL FOR YOUR HOME PHONE! ---* With eVoice Now you can keep in touch with clients, vendors, co-workers, friends and family ANYTIME, ANYWHERE. Sign Up Today for FREE! http://click.egroups.com/1/3426/2/_/17627/_/957431040/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com