From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Dec 16 10:09:46 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:09:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EnK1I-0001EJ-MA for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:09:28 -0800 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.203]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1EnK1G-0001EA-DN for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:09:28 -0800 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 68so637946wri for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:09:25 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=j3FI+Up1iRB1yNajcEwyGiYrjoMNUnPeNx++GIVFNHyRVDyP48cRLMymV+6GUe3EWO11JjxHaZFfklliUGOhHnviqhrZMdtG87l0YVZW76knJC1pE7493WKygC7e1eG6xv77vM4VHpyvXmkY5rn5cSaXFyKvk9CRasxvsTW0EFY= Received: by 10.54.121.13 with SMTP id t13mr2908185wrc; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:09:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.54.126.1 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:09:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560512161009tfe500fexec0e892b169883b5@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:09:24 -0300 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A Proposed Explanation of {gunma} In-Reply-To: <20051216171847.17325.qmail@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <925d17560512160537t16367b82n387bf785628cc829@mail.gmail.com> <20051216171847.17325.qmail@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 10912 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 12/16/05, John E Clifford wrote: > It does, however, point to > another place where the gadri solution does not > work -- and a much more common one than the > previous peculiarities: when the sumti is not a > description at all. {lo'u ko'a} for non-distributive and {ro ko'a} for distributive. > The immediate idea was using something like the > {fV} series to show places (mark on the predicate > as it were,)so > {ko'a ko'e ko'i broda fe d fu c gi'e (I suspect > it has to be a different connective at this > point) brode fa c fu d vau (maybe this will have > to change as well) fo'a fo'e fo'i} Actually, if d and c are syntactic sumti, that parses correctly as is. So all you would need is to add two members of KOhA (or possibly just one plus a -nai version). Then you would have {le sruri be fa d} and {le sruri be fa c} for the description forms, which could also be shortened to {le d sruri} and {le c sruri} (as long as you didn't have to use another sumti in that (possesive) position). > > Ulish? > > > Able to occur in a wide variety of contexts, even > if not literally after (or before) absolutely any > word. >From "universalish"? Searching the web I can only find an Ulish Booker that plays for the Pittsburgh Steelers: > Back to something you said earlier, namely that > gunma1 stands for a single thing and gunma2 > stands for the several things that comprise it. > While you are objecting bunches (I think -- you > may just be pointing out that the bunches theses > so far are not quite right for plural > quantification/reference), Actually, I neither object nor endorse them. I only refrained from using any noun (like "mass" or "bunch") to designate the loi/joi sumti so as to avoid as much as posible any notion of reification. > I wonder what one > thing you have in mind for gunma1. Anything with constituents: groups, bunches, aggregates, stacks, crowds, committees, congregations, etc. I just don't want it as a special grammatical object. > Given that I > also take you as saying that {lo broda} and {loi > broda} are the same thing only with difference in > declared distributivity, I suppose (given your > views on what lo broda is) that loi broda -- and > hence gunma1 generally "Hence" is inappropriate there, since {loi broda} would not be the typical sumti to put in the x1 of gunma. -- is some sort of Urgoo, > at least in many cases. In which case I suppose > that gunma2 is a list of > avatars/slices/exemplars/... . Do I have any of > this close to right? I think the best gismu for avatars/exemplars (not too sure about slices) is {mupli} (but not with its official place structure, so I will use a lujvo instead): la fidos cu selkaimupli lo gerku Fido is an instance of a dog. I don't think the avatar/exemplar/token/... relation has a lot to do with {gunma}. I can say: le kanmi cu gunma la djan jo'u la meris The committee consists of John and Mary. or: lo kanmi cu gunma lo prenu Committees consist of people. So it seems to be orthogonal to genericity. mu'o mi'e xorxes To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.