From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRDcv8jeBBoEDiUY-g@googlegroups.com Fri Apr 23 15:32:24 2010 Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O5RQ3-0001Yp-So; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:32:24 -0700 Received: by wya21 with SMTP id 21sf1179776wya.16 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:32:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=6ZvSeV5Wfqmylaly2f+4XqFkw1UqzFHt8tpQbw5fRzo=; b=FFmz1brF2LV6L1PTLmt4xme0nqCa/tbopbXynSOV5moLzR8RCDZ+86N4QZDb+B+6T9 2m89/TQxGnM/Ct0B3fGIAZh6Qu3F819zE5yXasQDIXzLFHF0p1H2D6l9xsJaH4bkCovQ WWB9ndPBacNN6ABtoPVGGHphqjk5mCyRf0TVo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=5v9NLtLFBX/V/6BYFpsrSplpLlJbaXOGANSVEK9QKULUOjSviAQrWiNDP3JKHOilk4 +5Iqz8JvSFtWsvZDNrTfHZcnswxo96HYPt2wsrpwo+x7SAkwDakCypgVhBvIRXMi4cHE LVBgegJRwHlO8brWCY4d3bdXHFKIdZNU6OpY0= Received: by 10.223.25.203 with SMTP id a11mr276537fac.1.1272061916763; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:31:56 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.6.87 with SMTP id 23ls11948316bky.0.p; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:31:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.137.151 with SMTP id w23mr30453bkt.8.1272061914794; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:31:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.137.151 with SMTP id w23mr30452bkt.8.1272061914767; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:31:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f195.google.com (mail-qy0-f195.google.com [209.85.221.195]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 11si188739bwz.14.2010.04.23.15.31.53; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:31:53 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.221.195 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.221.195; Received: by mail-qy0-f195.google.com with SMTP id 33so7932702qyk.24 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:31:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.241.82 with SMTP id ld18mr879913qcb.60.1272061913144; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:31:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.79.75 with HTTP; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:31:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4BD1EA77.3070908@gmail.com> References: <4BBE188B.8070807@lojban.org> <4BC1D15A.5030409@lojban.org> <4BC36464.8010707@gmail.com> <6d4d93ea-e660-4ad1-8910-02ddbb96f48c@b6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> <7913e18e-b0f2-4b18-bb4d-ecf39ef60f38@v14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> <4BD1EA77.3070908@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 19:31:53 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: {le} in xorlo From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.221.195 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 3:44 PM, And Rosta wrote: > Jorge Llamb=EDas, On 23/04/2010 02:07: >> >> We would also have: "LE relative-clause KU" (as well as the more >> obvious "LE KU relative-clause") > > Do they mean the same thing? I remember we discussed it once, many years > ago, but can't remember the answer. Without a quantifier, I don't see a difference. With a quantifier, the inner clause should be clearly part of the sumti, and so it should work in the same way as without a quantifier. The outer clause with a quantifier involved is tricky. It could be taken as restricting the referents of the sumti, or as restricting the quantifier. If the latter, then each value of the bound variable must pass through the restrictive clause filter individually. I don't know whether it's worth making it restrict the quantifier. One problem is that in "ko'a poi broda" we don't really have the two choices. no lo ze prenu (ku) poi pendo mi cu klama lo fasygu'e "None of the seven people who are my friends went to France." Am I saying that of the seven people who are my friends, none of them went to France, or that of the seven people, no friend of mine went to France? Without "ku", it's clearly the first, but what happens with "ku"? >> The nice thing about "LE relative-clause" is that it is just like >> Spanish. English doesn't allow that construction, but Spanish does. >> >> And it makes poi'i/seka sort of redundant to "lo poi ge broda gi broda". >> >> Yes, this definitely should be allowed. > > Do you have some kind of record of these ideas? I don't think there is a centralized record, but they are bound to come up for discussion whenever we decide to make a complete official formal grammar, which we don't currently have. > And will we at long last > start seeing them implemented? Ah, that is the question. :) mu'o mi'e xorxes --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.