From lojban+bncCIPo5fbjAhCPxoLpBBoEBZKBCA@googlegroups.com Sun Jan 02 08:09:08 2011 Received: from mail-qy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.216.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PZQUL-0006R2-KE; Sun, 02 Jan 2011 08:09:07 -0800 Received: by qyk1 with SMTP id 1sf41549915qyk.16 for ; Sun, 02 Jan 2011 08:08:51 -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:received-spf:received:mime-version:received :sender: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 :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=NkddQcmSPM9hazYwaCBu3r1F1hgyD3HbIuwoW3KbXr8=; b=Ky4ESznl/6EKkjLpNfLpZAsT4cD6D1Plz5zKYyE8a7v84/k0n+4VubjNmt+OCkFCnb auGaK1vWyQoS50wCAgo/vQk6ZGuSxc4vY1WrPw1jxUfFNVDMXQi7w96fvFP3ggpHyIGb WFywH9JcNBwDhg9nJf+vxstIIOf+Co/UCcp1k= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender: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:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=rZw42PVozHEU4Rp/7sKnMuJowU2K1J9pxIUO+3lAwkeZplg3/qcavj3U5SOK3vSOrp Q7QddAgz78zBEGiBqjgnKx2cj3AB/0WufAwozAC8CJkStAdoDaB8+pBqEOjEmMZJsS96 4LPMtMCu65UJMGlp2Yjl18s5c0pb+hV74ZdHo= Received: by 10.224.11.67 with SMTP id s3mr1036991qas.37.1293984527711; Sun, 02 Jan 2011 08:08:47 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.224.207.201 with SMTP id fz9ls1861574qab.3.p; Sun, 02 Jan 2011 08:08:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.224.67.147 with SMTP id r19mr403730qai.22.1293984527376; Sun, 02 Jan 2011 08:08:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.199.12 with SMTP id w12mr14399234wff.68.1293922876467; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 15:01:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.199.12 with SMTP id w12mr14399233wff.68.1293922876440; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 15:01:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-px0-f177.google.com (mail-px0-f177.google.com [209.85.212.177]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id n6si19904667wfl.7.2011.01.01.15.01.15; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 15:01:15 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of cyril.slobin@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.177 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.177; Received: by pxi7 with SMTP id 7so3206390pxi.36 for ; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 15:01:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.199.18 with SMTP id w18mr1043933wff.269.1293922875212; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 15:01:15 -0800 (PST) Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.142.185.21 with HTTP; Sat, 1 Jan 2011 15:01:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <201012301717.31348.phma@phma.optus.nu> Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 02:01:15 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] GIhA question From: Cyril Slobin To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: cyrilslobin@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of cyril.slobin@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.177 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=cyril.slobin@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: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Seems like gmail have troubles delivering my post to the list. Second attempt, sorry if you have received this second time. On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Michael Turniansky wrote: > Also, if you DID want to have same unspecified-but-obvious object > that you both talked to and ate, you could say "mi tavla gi'e citka > vau zo'e" After a cup of tea: I think now that you are wrong. {mi tavla gi'e citka vau da} is equal to {mi tavla da gi'e citka da}, where {da} IS a shared object. {mi tavla gi'e citka vau zo'e} is equal to {mi tavla zo'e gi'e citka zo'e}, where {zo'e} IS NOT a shared object. Unless you agree with this, you must state that either (1) adding an elidable terminator {vau} changes a meaning of sentence, or (2) using {zo'e} has a different meaning that an absent argument. Both seems not plausible for me. For the second possibility: consider me wanting to share the third argument, not the second. I've always believed that {mi tavla zo'e da} and {mi tavla fi da} are equivalent, and therefore {mi tavla gi'e pinxe vau zo'e da} and {mi tavla gi'e pinxe vau fi da} are equivalent too. BTW, this (unlike talking to things eaten) has really happen with me during today New Year party! ;-) -- http://slobin.pp.ru/ `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, `it means just what I choose it to mean' -- 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@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.