From: "Philip Newton" <pnewton@gmx.de>
Organization: datenrevision GmbH & Co. OHG
To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 09:13:30 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: "Lupin's left eye is rebelling"
Message-ID: <404C393A.22969.13966F@localhost>
Priority: normal
In-reply-to: <20040308054805.26343.qmail@web40402.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <200403080224.VAA25900@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-description: Mail message body
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: 977

On 7 Mar 2004 at 21:48, Eric Sumner wrote:

> The place structure of {kanla} is "x1 is a/the eye [body-part] of x2"
> and is not significantly changed by {zunle}, therefore {la lupan.}
> should be in the x2 place of that tanru. 

It could be, but need not.

{le la lupyn. zunle kanla} is "the left eye associated with Lupin", 
equivalent to {le zunle kanla pe la lupyn} - though as Andrew pointed 
out, {po'e} may be better. Or, as you mentioned, including it in the 
tanru, which would require {be} - {le zunle kanla be la lupyn}

> Also, {zunle kanla la lupan.} is an entire bridi and must be
> relativized to use it as a sumti with {poi}:  {poi zunle kanla la
> lupan.}. 

Not necessarily - you could just stick a gadri in front of it (e.g. 
{le}), but then you'd need {be} to glue the "la lupyn" into the tanru 
rather than having it fall apart as a sumti of its own.

mu'o mi'e .filip.
-- 
filip.niutyn. <pnewton@gmx.de>
li te'o te'a ka'o bi'e pi'i pai su'i pa du li no