Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 14:13:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Invent Yourself <xod@thestonecutters.net>
To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
cc: tk1@despammed.com
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: coi lojban.
In-Reply-To: <20030505175322.GA1309@panda.localdomain>
Message-ID: <20030505141141.W46975-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Content-Length: 1323

On Tue, 6 May 2003 tk1@despammed.com wrote:

> Hello,
>
> > The word formation rules are about the only *syntactic* rules Lojban
> > has.
> > http://www.lojban.org/publications/reference_grammar/chapter4.html
>
> Thanks.
>
> I am currently flipping through the reference grammar, and I just got
> another question: in Chapter 6 this example is given:
>
> 	13.3)	ro da poi prenu cu prami pa de poi finpe
> 		All somethings-1 which-are persons love one something-2
> 		    which-is a-fish.
> 		All persons love a fish (each his/her own).
>
> 	(This is not the same as "All persons love a certain fish"; the
> 	difference between the two is one of quantifier order.)
>
> If I change the above Lojban sentence to {pa de poi finpe cu se prami ro da
> poi prenu}, will the new sentence take on the first or second meaning? In
> other words, can the use of the word {se} potentially _change_ the meaning
> of a sentence, in addition to switching sumti order?


Yes, it can.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jboske/message/1717

(I would have given a non-jboske and more helpful reference but I can't
find any)


-- 
Neoconservatism in the realm of foreign policy is merely
Trotskyism-turned-inside-out: a militant internationalism fueled by U.S.
taxpayer dollars and backed up by the mightiest military the world has
ever seen.