From lojban-out@lojban.org Sun Oct 31 20:12:16 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 35759 invoked from network); 1 Nov 2004 04:12:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m19.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Nov 2004 04:12:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Nov 2004 04:12:15 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1COTYA-00083V-Ck for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:12:10 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1COTXR-00082q-VK; Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:11:26 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:11:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1COTXE-00082Z-1E for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:11:12 -0800 Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:11:12 -0800 Message-ID: <20041101041112.GM14527@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <200410312109.45782.phma@phma.hn.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200410312109.45782.phma@phma.hn.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i X-archive-position: 8903 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Subject: [lojban] Re: tu'e in relative clause X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 23309 On Sun, Oct 31, 2004 at 10:09:45PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote: > I just wrote the following in [[auskalerik]]: > > ni'o la .auskalerik. cu vasru ze gugypau poi tu'e vo ke'a cu zvati > la sangug .ije ci ke'a cu zvati la fasygug. tu'u .i la .Arabak .e > la gipuskuak .e la nafaruak .e la biskaiak. zvati la sangug .ije > la diz.nafaruak .e la lapurdik .e la suberuak. zvati la fasygug > > jbofi'e chokes on {tu'e}. Why? Because POI takes the subsentence production: subsentence = sentence / prenex subsentence sentence = [terms [CU *free]] bridi-tail There is no way from there to statement-3, which is where TUhE comes in: statement-3 = sentence / [tag] TUhE *free text-1 {TUhU *free} In other words, a tu'e clause is "too big" for POI. > How should I say it? Uhhhh. The only way I see to stick more than one bridi in a poi clause is ge...gi stuff. I would use "poi la'e da'e", myself. -Robin, who hasn't actually read the text in question. -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/