From lojban+bncCJzE7b_XFxCuq8jzBBoEKBV3mQ@googlegroups.com Thu Sep 15 08:12:03 2011 Received: from mail-gw0-f62.google.com ([74.125.83.62]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1R4DbS-0006tz-9m; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 08:12:03 -0700 Received: by gwj22 with SMTP id 22sf3786095gwj.27 for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 08:11:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:date:from:reply-to:to:message-id:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:precedence :mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=9OnncRrt/eCTP2ndSgW5jlQkTikZlmVCNhytVg+jNn4=; b=0RZwGw4jYM8p7ITStKANO55tWQ0iL/9rUrmWr6AobAhrXqiSRaeZfoiXiTuqwlRwTD krR1aRSscf3CCC8djQn2Sjk1i7gsm0yruBprlyThX6Q/WUgpwcBZxcSfbJF1qJDFDwef 69iuMKUlagmIMyjUO+X7y8z7HrMI8CUX9NlRg= Received: by 10.236.180.105 with SMTP id i69mr956807yhm.2.1316099502645; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 08:11:42 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.101.181.40 with SMTP id i40ls7576671anp.0.gmail; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 08:11:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.101.196.20 with SMTP id y20mr247988anp.24.1316099501738; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 08:11:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 08:11:41 -0700 (PDT) From: djandus Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-ID: <33025582.3828.1316099501254.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqah42> Subject: [lojban] {soi} grammar MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: jandew@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: ls.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jandew@gmail.com designates internal as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jandew@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.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="----=_Part_3827_1275703.1316099501253" ------=_Part_3827_1275703.1316099501253 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 So, most of the time, I pretty quickly understand where certain rules come from, but this one bothers me: why can't {soi} be able to grab two sumti automatically from the sentence? If this were the case, there would be two choices. So, my idea is that all of the following are equivalent, with a choice at the end: mi prami do soi vo'a vo'e mi prami do soi vo'a mi prami do soi [se'u] (automatically takes last two sumti) or mi prami soi se'u do (automatically takes immediately adjacent sumti) The first two are discussed to be equivalent in CLL 7.8 but the last case is explicitly ungrammatical -- why? Either case doesn't seem too complicated, at least in simple situations, and if there's a complicated example where it doesn't work well, then the speaker would be expected to use the other forms for clarity. mu'o mi'e djos -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/YnhYzeegoEYJ. 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. ------=_Part_3827_1275703.1316099501253 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable So, most of the time, I pretty quickly understand where certain rules come = from, but this one bothers me: why can't {soi} be able to grab two sumti au= tomatically from the sentence? If this were the case, there would be two ch= oices.

So, my idea is that all of the following are equi= valent, with a choice at the end:
mi prami do soi vo'a vo'e
<= div>mi p= rami do soi vo'a
   mi prami do soi [se'u]  (automatically takes last two sumti)
or
   mi pr= ami soi se'u do    (automatically takes immediately a= djacent sumti)

The first two are discussed to be e= quivalent in CLL 7.8 but the last case is explicitly ungrammatical -- why? = Either case doesn't seem too complicated, at least in simple situations, an= d if there's a complicated example where it doesn't work well, then the spe= aker would be expected to use the other forms for clarity.

mu'o mi'e djos

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/Yn= hYzeegoEYJ.
=20 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.
------=_Part_3827_1275703.1316099501253--