From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Oct 01 17:59:19 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 2 Oct 2002 00:59:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 65827 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2002 00:59:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Oct 2002 00:59:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Oct 2002 00:59:18 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17wXuE-0001K9-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 01 Oct 2002 18:02:26 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17wXtO-0001F6-00; Tue, 01 Oct 2002 18:01:34 -0700 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 ; 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 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: paroi ro mentu Message-ID: <20021002010538.GB72276@allusion.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="V0207lvV8h4k8FAm" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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 X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 16290 --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 [Attachment content not displayed.] --V0207lvV8h4k8FAm--