From sentto-44114-2924-960055789-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Sat Jun 03 18:07:56 2000
Return-Path: <sentto-44114-2924-960055789-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com>
Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org
Received: (qmail 2755 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2000 18:07:55 -0000
Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18)
  by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 3 Jun 2000 18:07:55 -0000
Received: (qmail 17637 invoked by uid 40001); 3 Jun 2000 18:09:52 -0000
Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org
Received: (qmail 17634 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2000 18:09:51 -0000
Received: from mw.egroups.com (207.138.41.167)
  by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 3 Jun 2000 18:09:51 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2924-960055789-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.10.36] by mw.egroups.com with NNFMP; 03 Jun 2000 18:09:50 -0000
Received: (qmail 12561 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2000 18:09:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Jun 2000 18:09:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r13.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.67) by mta3 with SMTP; 3 Jun 2000 18:09:48 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.9.) id a.bd.3e3bf5a (3925) for <lojban@egroups.com>; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 14:09:36 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <bd.3e3bf5a.266aa3df@aol.com>
To: lojban@egroups.com
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41
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: <mailto:lojban-unsubscribe@egroups.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 14:09:35 EDT
Subject: Re: [lojban] First steps with 'being'...
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 00-06-03 12:39:36 EDT, aulun writes:

<< Is this correct? 
 mi klama zo'e ma .i mi mo .i mi klama ma
 And what's about this:
 ma te klama zo'e mi .i mi mo .i ma se klama mi
 
 Are there (still) other ways to express these old questions of
 man(kind)?>>


mi klama fi ma, for the first, also moving arguments all before or all after 
the predicate.

 <<What's about the other way round with the second phrase? mo mi or: mo
 cu mi (I'm all other than confident, though). Or: ma mi>>

mo cu mi is not grammatical, I think, because mi is not a predicate.  ditto 
ma mi, where neither is, though I am less sure about that
 
<<In "mi mo", mo is representing a whole unknown selbri (with all its
 unknown places). How can this being narrowed in to a more 
 specific question?>>
Put modifiers on mo, a tanru with mo in one place, or prepositional phrases 
at the end.

 <<In "do na mi" or "do na'e mi", mi is a whole selbri, aren't it?
 (being-I); are there any possible sumti of mi then? I'm having a 
 couple of grammatical difficulties with 'to be' not expressed in
 Lojban. Is it the fact that every 'noun' in the function of a selbri
 also  has to have places too? So what are the places of the pro-selbri mi?
  >>
I'm not sure I follow.  I don't think do na mi nor do na'e mi is grammatical 
as a bridi.  The relation unexpressed is presumably identity (one of 
English's 'be's), but that has always to be expressed: mintu, du, or, with 
descriptors, me.  The only unexpressed English 'be' is the copular one, that 
attaches a subject to a common noun or adjective; that function is inherent 
in the relation of sumti to brivla within a bridi, so needs no separate mark. 
 But mi is not a brivla, so it does not relate to sumti in that way  -- it 
has no places -- it is a pro-sumti, not a pro-selbri.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroups members: $60 in FREE calls! Join beMANY! 
And pay less each month for long distance.
http://click.egroups.com/1/4122/3/_/17627/_/960055780/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com