From lojban+bncCK30vq5WEPzZ0_AEGgQxf5M2@googlegroups.com Wed Jul 06 16:17:31 2011 Received: from mail-pv0-f189.google.com ([74.125.83.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QebLU-0004fA-21; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 16:17:31 -0700 Received: by pvc22 with SMTP id 22sf35961pvc.16 for ; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 16:17:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:in-reply-to:user-agent: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:content-disposition; bh=uMVyZCQF2jFAwlP0y/c+0tYle1d2/RFrYtCSRv1/qCI=; b=XAb4k85zNOTz6V8WKWNFmrVmE0qKSRpawYFtvOVoBqHQ1BRtzHrDTkVrnKCPM5Imsd S7A2w9B6tPUwDSp84yN1RhLaBq7ija54/yQedFR3FtzDNkuN/q3jWu5aSpAJnP6jcd9p 8r7z0G5T3Fq+1xLDPqUJ/H4KJUP1o+Ylstv2k= Received: by 10.68.8.138 with SMTP id r10mr5687pba.81.1309994236963; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 16:17:16 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.68.16.199 with SMTP id i7ls7365823pbd.3.gmail; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 16:17:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.66.6 with SMTP id b6mr34973pbt.30.1309994235898; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 16:17:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.66.6 with SMTP id b6mr34972pbt.30.1309994235885; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 16:17:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org (digitalkingdom.org [173.13.139.234]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f8si17673036pbc.0.2011.07.06.16.17.15 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 06 Jul 2011 16:17:15 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org designates 173.13.139.234 as permitted sender) client-ip=173.13.139.234; Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QebLG-0004f4-6F for lojban@googlegroups.com; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 16:17:14 -0700 Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 16:17:14 -0700 From: Robin Lee Powell To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] da broda, ko'a broda, da bu'a, zo'e co'e Message-ID: <20110706231714.GW8547@digitalkingdom.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Original-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org designates 173.13.139.234 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org 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 Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 04:02:07AM -0600, Jonathan Jones wrote: > 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. Boy are *you* in the wrong community. 0.o Also, I think the fact that it *is* broke was pretty well demonstrated. For arbitrary grammatical exposition, I'd say {zo'e co'e} or {ko'a broda}; I have no strong preference. For actual logical correspondance, {da bu'a}, but it's rare that that actually comes up. -Robin -- http://singinst.org/ : Our last, best hope for a fantastic future. Lojban (http://www.lojban.org/): The language in which "this parrot is dead" is "ti poi spitaki cu morsi", but "this sentence is false" is "na nei". My personal page: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/rlp/ -- 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.