From fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com Tue Oct 01 18:01:34 2002
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 01 Oct 2002 18:01:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root)
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
	id 17wXtL-0001Ex-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 01 Oct 2002 18:01:31 -0700
Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g9215cGZ072477
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 20:05:38 -0500 (CDT)
	(envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com)
Received: (from fracture@localhost)
	by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g9215cWT072476
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 20:05:38 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 20:05:38 -0500
From: Jordan DeLong <fracture@allusion.net>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: paroi ro mentu
Message-ID: <20021002010538.GB72276@allusion.net>
References: <F270WVSlV11V061w4RA00009b27@hotmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="V0207lvV8h4k8FAm"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <F270WVSlV11V061w4RA00009b27@hotmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-archive-position: 1801
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list


--V0207lvV8h4k8FAm
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 02:01:11AM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> la djorden cusku di'e
> >And
> >   paroi ko'a .e ko'e broda
> >as
> >   paroi ko'a broda .ije paroi ko'e broda
>=20
> That's what I want, so we agree about this case. But for me this
> is the exact same case as {paroi ro le re co'e cu broda}.

Interesting.  Now that I fully understand your reasoning I think
it makes sense.  This applies to interpetations of all the tags as
you were saying.  So
	sera'a ro le re gerku mi se batci
would indicate I was bitten 2 times under your interpretation, which
probably makes more sense actually, as I could just say
	sera'a lei gerku mi se batci
to get the other interpretation.

Oh I just thought of another point: it seems to be more similar to
to how it would be treated in the actual sumti place of a bridi:
	fi'o se srana ro le re gerku mi se batci

So I now think your interpretation is better.

As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the book defining tag+sumti
when the sumti has a quantifier other than a su'opa which is expected
to refer to a single thing, and since it's technically all within
one term the left-to-right stuff doesn't really address it.  So
this definitely needs to be clarified.

How is this stuff usually done?  If it isn't documented somewhere
as a clarification and made quasi-official (whichever way the
interpretation goes) there's no way to prevent it from being used
both ways...

--=20
Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
                                     sei la mark. tuen. cusku

--V0207lvV8h4k8FAm
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE9mkZhDrrilS51AZ8RAmK1AKCTiWQeLTOqK5WN8a8F+H/isWYTCwCfXAqq
MWTGCnQusf4uJ2VIRgarE3U=
=DfRu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--V0207lvV8h4k8FAm--