From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Thu Nov 13 12:46:27 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 44970 invoked from network); 13 Nov 2003 20:46:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166) by m19.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Nov 2003 20:46:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Nov 2003 20:46:26 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.22) id 1AKOLt-0004Xz-L4 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:46:05 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1AKOLH-0004XI-U8; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:45:27 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:45:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from web41906.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.157]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.22) id 1AKOL2-0004Wr-7G for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:45:12 -0800 Message-ID: <20031113204500.13323.qmail@web41906.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.49.74.2] by web41906.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:44:59 PST Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:44:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [lojban] Re: cfari In-Reply-To: <20031113202513.GF15777@skunk.reutershealth.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 6653 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com From: Jorge "Llambías" Reply-To: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=142311107 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 21134 --- John Cowan wrote: > Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > > Those of you without time/ability to read the Lojban might might the > > topic interesting: xorxes was pointing out four places where I used > > a COI cmavo as though it was UI (i.e., without following it with a > > name). xorxes expressed his desire for COI cmavo to actually > > grammatically be like UI cmavo (which I'm inclined to agree with). > > Well, UI binds to the previous word. Is that what you were doing? Doesn't the COI construct also bind to the previous word? If so, that wouldn't make a difference. In these examples Robin used them at the beginning of the sentence, binding to {i} which means that they bind to the whole bridi. > It's certainly grammatical to have COI by itself now, although you > need an explicit "do'u" if the next thing is a name or sumti. Or a selbri. It would be very rare to follow a bare COI with a name, but sumti and selbri are very common. In practice, about the only place where bare COIs can be used safely is followed by {i}. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree