From lojban+bncCIfp7ILVEBDV5PftBBoEJYzOOQ@googlegroups.com Sun May 01 16:53:09 2011 Received: from mail-yi0-f61.google.com ([209.85.218.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QGgRj-0007X0-IW; Sun, 01 May 2011 16:53:09 -0700 Received: by yie19 with SMTP id 19sf9577074yie.16 for ; Sun, 01 May 2011 16:52:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:mime-version:date:x-ip:user-agent :x-http-useragent:message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=OS18hUcVRjKXqZchh6e4IW7dN1j+xu7JDMUxv4g9epg=; b=Sv7swzq3091Q6LOX23eVwhmBWCTtiyksO+vuDMI1Ex8E3v5sUmdh5ugDknzSxA3hY2 n4sNG6/95PneTETx52vaLz4xNNSJQuYCRo2ureMPab+IBI6z2xfBMpimp5Lu9CnkhWAN FIpIHC6FbyjBo6ZVS9NO76R2w2VQLC+4EzxjU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:mime-version:date:x-ip:user-agent:x-http-useragent :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence :mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=mlCDi6hNfuDVArYy9BhuuSLprhwjihiAvv5g7+0KLJ5kgDIcQ77Hpv3jwjpb8YcK3/ 2RjYsyy8xkua/hoLrnf3oQ/sP3POW26c89V8IX5gJmUnoZUBnwYElCmGWw2HLiYRmGZx OtpkdSFBG5bV/7sEcxFDCCEcMiqHgVurXZf5M= Received: by 10.236.125.228 with SMTP id z64mr702883yhh.52.1304293973832; Sun, 01 May 2011 16:52:53 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.150.101.5 with SMTP id y5ls2966867ybb.3.gmail; Sun, 01 May 2011 16:52:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.150.15 with SMTP id c15mr533786ybo.16.1304293973205; Sun, 01 May 2011 16:52:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.127.19 with SMTP id e19msybn; Sat, 30 Apr 2011 16:25:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.91.17.30 with SMTP id u30mr285214agi.10.1304205945259; Sat, 30 Apr 2011 16:25:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by z13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com with HTTP; Sat, 30 Apr 2011 16:25:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 16:25:45 -0700 (PDT) X-IP: 187.114.212.177 User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110428 Fedora/3.6.17-1.fc14 Firefox/3.6.17,gzip(gfe) Message-ID: Subject: [lojban] [CLL Errata] zo ra'o From: ".asiz." To: lojban X-Original-Sender: felipeg.assis@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 coi rodo In http://www.lojban.org/publications/reference_grammar/chapter7.html#s6 after the explanation about the cmavo {ra'o}, it is stated that " The ``ra'o'' forces the second ``mi'' from the original bridi to mean the new speaker rather than the former speaker. This means that ``go'e ra'o'' would be an acceptable alternative to ``do go'e'' in B's statement in Example 6.10. " If I understand correctly, the last sentence is wrong for two reasons. The CLL defines {ra'o} in this paragraph: " Finally, ``ra'o'' is a cmavo that can be appended to any go'i-series cmavo, or indeed any cmavo of selma'o GOhA, to signal that pro-sumti or pro- bridi cmavo in the antecedent are to be repeated literally and reinterpreted in their new context. Normally, any pro-sumti used within the antecedent of the pro-bridi keep their meanings intact. In the presence of ``ra'o'', however, their meanings must be reinterpreted with reference to the new environment. " Example 6.10 is " 6.10) A: mi ba klama le zarci B: mi nelci le si'o mi go'i A: do go'e " Firstly, {do go'e} is not B's, but A's statement. Secondly, being A's statement, the referent of {mi} does not change. In this example, {go'e ra'o} would mean the same as {go'e}. The current text might give the impression that {ra'o} simply swaps {mi} by {do} in the referenced bridi, which is not the case, is it? Apparently, someone noted that and proposed a correction in http://www.lojban.org/tiki/CLL%2C+aka+Reference+Grammar%2C+Errata However, I believe that the "correct correction" approved instead is in contradiction with the definition of {ra'o} in the CLL, for the reasons stated above. I would then appreciate clarification on the issue. Also, is this the right place to discuss this kind of issue? mu'o mi'e .asiz. -- 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.