From lojban+bncCIycn8S8DhDlqIDpBBoEH0klIA@googlegroups.com Sat Jan 01 22:00:17 2011 Received: from mail-qy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.216.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PZGzG-0004NH-Fd; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 22:00:17 -0800 Received: by qyk1 with SMTP id 1sf39471320qyk.16 for ; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 22:00:08 -0800 (PST) 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-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=lkER1lwl+axpTnNHtF1c1YbVhb7AXBPzQEENc0KVvTI=; b=HnXLv0Dtnno/GyPe6QQSpQqMCpMD3gsT0t5TozBNbP4K446BypspClZ24z7BGurKGh Iw8Wl7UB6SgYUXXN3FKEJNaNPGWjdZnntiXBn5AcsaKJ6TszUpZLTbG00jq26ppDV6hc BxslF8eupcBcZoZ9CLXDA+CZJaqc/yHMT26qw= 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-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=O+to+HZbb6eqp/2PUIbP130fBDD3IfnAFv2IhvZapS3CkRBh3lilLSplNOGarfppd3 JLuclrwOi9yLDArRXcel54nxslisrqzEY1XwV02uNnFU1QJ4yxZQutK3lXIe7213PanQ I8jjjC6x5kAfmNzzIAb0sNvMeIzv15+JECjnU= Received: by 10.229.51.229 with SMTP id e37mr2392838qcg.29.1293948005006; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 22:00:05 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.224.176.70 with SMTP id bd6ls3167206qab.5.p; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 22:00:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.224.20.68 with SMTP id e4mr1763376qab.23.1293948004574; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 22:00:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.224.20.68 with SMTP id e4mr1763375qab.23.1293948004561; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 22:00:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qw0-f46.google.com (mail-qw0-f46.google.com [209.85.216.46]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id l11si3518548qcg.8.2011.01.01.22.00.03; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 22:00:03 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.46 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.46; Received: by qwa26 with SMTP id 26so13483509qwa.5 for ; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 22:00:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.189.6 with SMTP id dc6mr16645660qcb.175.1293948003370; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 22:00:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.213.204 with HTTP; Sat, 1 Jan 2011 22:00:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201101020041.00013.phma@phma.optus.nu> References: <201101020041.00013.phma@phma.optus.nu> Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 01:00:03 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] GIhA question From: Michael Turniansky To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: mturniansky@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.46 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mturniansky@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@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 Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Pierre Abbat wrote: > On Sunday 02 January 2011 00:28:42 Michael Turniansky wrote: >> =A0 I'd have to say that in the absence of an EXPLICIT "zo'e", they are >> not inserted in the bridi tail. =A0And (as my example), if an explicit >> zo'e is located in the bridi tail, it would have to be inserted in the >> first available space (that is to say, the first place not explicitly >> filled by something). =A0It would seem to be the most natural method of >> understanding these constructions. > > I don't think that an explicit "zo'e" in this construction would do anyth= ing > different from leaving it out. The only places I know of where an > explicit "zo'e" means anything different from omission is in a subordinat= e or > relative clause, where "ce'u" or "ke'a" would be assumed to fill an omitt= ed > place and "zo'e" indicates that the place is in fact empty. > > Pierre > -- I am asserting an analgous situation -- bridi tails are always assumed empty (they are implicitly zo'e filled before the GIhA and vau) unless an explicit zo'e fills them. --gejyspa --=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.