From lojban+bncCMHEmaCOBhCh5dDwBBoEgRWCiw@googlegroups.com Wed Jul 06 03:02:26 2011 Received: from mail-gy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QeOw0-0000NT-5L; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 03:02:26 -0700 Received: by gyg4 with SMTP id 4sf8279077gyg.16 for ; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 03:02:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; 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:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=P64/zyyYB2N85U2dfs4MILTd68M999zKIclXqbFzLcE=; b=4Oo18pHxRRf03oeb/s/1VjGu3J+PYOvWSHV3Cn0WWBQO3j+SzzZuJm7FeuHJNtbtwB I2deacZI/TtSHJ3YJz19s+zUKp5baJ0j62zNzdJdrJ8M50R5Kg7yjr8VU9Bu14Er1oKt C7eR/LOL/pb8GCcX7x6STRQeDPUDemCnJCgpw= Received: by 10.100.193.13 with SMTP id q13mr87282anf.9.1309946529083; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 03:02:09 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.160.132 with SMTP id n4ls5788545ibx.0.gmail; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 03:02:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.18.196 with SMTP id y4mr1789953ica.12.1309946528230; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 03:02:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.18.196 with SMTP id y4mr1789952ica.12.1309946528212; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 03:02:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iy0-f182.google.com (mail-iy0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k1si3158848icn.4.2011.07.06.03.02.08 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 06 Jul 2011 03:02:08 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.182 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.210.182; Received: by iyb11 with SMTP id 11so10621362iyb.27 for ; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 03:02:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.27.228 with SMTP id j36mr7633878ibc.117.1309946527961; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 03:02:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.13.195 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 03:02:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 04:02:07 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] da broda, ko'a broda, da bu'a, zo'e co'e From: Jonathan Jones To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: eyeonus@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.182 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=eyeonus@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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001517740dbc7951ac04a763b1d5 --001517740dbc7951ac04a763b1d5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 3:05 AM, tijlan wrote: > We often use the combination of "da/de/di" & > "broda/brode/brodi/brodo/brodu" when we describe the grammar by way of > syntactically indicating but not semantically specifying the sumti & > selbri spaces. For example: > > da broda lo nu brode kei de lo brodi di > > That is, some of us (including myself) tend to use a pair of "da/..." > & "broda/..." to explain the general structure of a particular > expression or to suggest how to put together whatever sumti or selbri > for a certain form of expression. > > Some nintadni would then likely get the impression that > > whatever sumti <-- da > whatever selbri <-- broda > > and perhaps, with the gimmicks of LE-sumtification and ME-selbrification, > that > > me da (is-whatever) = broda > lo broda (that which is-whatever) = da > > That notion might also be informally driven by the appearance that > "da" and "broda" share an identical syllable. > > The whole assumed correspondence between "da" & "broda" wouldn't be > correct, however. "da/..." are BOUND VARIABLEs, while "broda/..." are > ASSIGNABLE PRO-FORMs", which is an important distinction to make > regarding the practice of quantification. Also, there is the > selbri-type of bound variables -- "bu'a/bu'e/bu'i" -- and the > sumti-type of assignable pro-forms -- "ko'a/ko'e/ko'i/...". That is: > > "broda" (assignable pro-form) aligns more with "ko'a" (assignable > pro-form) than with "da" (bound variable) > > and > > "da" (bound variable) aligns more with "bu'a" (bound variable) than > with "broda" (assignable pro-form) > > These alignments may be comparable to that of "zo'e" & "co'e" as well. > > With that in mind, which of the following combinations would most > finely substitute for the oft-used "da broda" in generalizing > grammatical structures: > > ko'a broda > da bu'a > zo'e co'e > > > mu'o mi'e tijlan > da broda If it ain't broke, don't fix it. -- mu'o mi'e .aionys. .i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) -- 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. --001517740dbc7951ac04a763b1d5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 3:05 AM, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com= > wrote:
We often use the combination of "da/de/di" &
"broda/brode/brodi/brodo/brodu" when we describe the grammar by w= ay of
syntactically indicating but not semantically specifying the sumti & selbri spaces. For example:

=A0da broda lo nu brode kei de lo brodi di

That is, some of us (including myself) tend to use a pair of "da/...&q= uot;
& "broda/..." to explain the general structure of a particula= r
expression or to suggest how to put together whatever sumti or selbri
for a certain form of expression.

Some nintadni would then likely get the impression that

=A0whatever sumti <-- da
=A0whatever selbri <-- broda

and perhaps, with the gimmicks of LE-sumtification and ME-selbrification, t= hat

=A0me da (is-whatever) =3D broda
=A0lo broda (that which is-whatever) =3D da

That notion might also be informally driven by the appearance that
"da" and "broda" share an identical syllable.

The whole assumed correspondence between "da" & "broda&q= uot; wouldn't be
correct, however. "da/..." are BOUND VARIABLEs, while "broda= /..." are
ASSIGNABLE PRO-FORMs", which is an important distinction to make
regarding the practice of quantification. Also, there is the
selbri-type of bound variables -- "bu'a/bu'e/bu'i" --= and the
sumti-type of assignable pro-forms -- "ko'a/ko'e/ko'i/...&= quot;. That is:

=A0"broda" (assignable pro-form) aligns more with "ko'a= " (assignable
pro-form) than with "da" (bound variable)

and

=A0"da" (bound variable) aligns more with "bu'a" (= bound variable) than
with "broda" (assignable pro-form)

These alignments may be comparable to that of "zo'e" & &q= uot;co'e" as well.

With that in mind, which of the following combinations would most
finely substitute for the oft-used "da broda" in generalizing
grammatical structures:

=A0ko'a broda
=A0da bu'a
=A0zo'e co'e


mu'o mi'e tijlan

da broda
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

--
mu= 'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu= .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

--
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.
--001517740dbc7951ac04a763b1d5--