Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sat, 10 Dec 2005 19:12:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1ElHdQ-0003vF-V3 for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Sat, 10 Dec 2005 19:12:25 -0800 Received: from mx3.mail.ru ([194.67.23.149]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1ElHdN-0003v7-N2 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sat, 10 Dec 2005 19:12:24 -0800 Received: from [212.17.3.19] (port=41183 helo=yanis.vpn.plhs) by mx3.mail.ru with esmtp id 1ElHdL-000P5L-00 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sun, 11 Dec 2005 06:12:19 +0300 Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 09:12:17 +0600 From: Yanis Batura X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <168903514.20051211091217@mail.ru> To: Dmitry Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Possesives in lojban In-Reply-To: <439B28F1.2080404@mail.ru> References: <439B28F1.2080404@mail.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----------AA1A62123E4A2A53" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-archive-position: 2737 X-Approved-By: ybatura@mail.ru X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: ybatura@mail.ru Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners Content-Length: 6598 ------------AA1A62123E4A2A53 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > There is an exercise on possessives, convert "pe" to nested form > le cukta pe le ninmu --> This one is a sumti (argument for a bridi), modified with {pe}. You need to convert it to a possessive sumti. This topic is covered in Chapter 8, section 7 of the Complete Lojban Language. It says: Although any sumti, however complex, can appear in a full-fledged relative phrase, only simple sumti can appear as possessor sumti, without a ``pe''. Roughly speaking, the legal possessor sumti are: pro-sumti, quotations, names and descriptions, and numbers. In addition, the possessor sumti may not be preceded by a quantifier, as such a form would be interpreted as the unusual ``descriptor + quantifier + sumti'' type of description. All these sumti forms are explained in full in Chapter 6. In the phrase {le cukta pe le ninmu} {le ninmu} is the possessor without elidable terminator {ku}. {le ninmu ku} is a description in its full form, so, being a simple sumti, it is allowed to be inserted between the gadri ({le}) and the selbri ({cukta}). > I offered: > le le ninmu cu cukta > Is it wrong? Answers page says "You can't do this (for now): le le ninmu > cukta is ambiguous.". But how about "cu"? This one is grammatically incorrect. Without the first preceding 'le' it is le ninmu cu cukta which is a bridi (ready relation), not a sumti (argument for it). You then add le. But le may be added to selbri, not bridi to form a description sumti. The correct answer is, of course, {le le ninmu ku cukta} In this sumti, {le ninmu ku} is an internal description sumti acting as a possessor. Without {ku}, {le le ninmu cukta}, this phrase is not 'abmiguous', but simply incorrect. {ninmu cukta} is a tanru type of selbri. The first {le} attached to this selbri creates a description sumti {le ninmu cukta}. But the second outer le runs the whole text to crash, because it is not possible to attach {le} to sumti without anything else. Yanis Batura ------------AA1A62123E4A2A53 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> There is an exercise on possessives, convert "pe" to nested form

> le cukta pe le ninmu -->

This one is a sumti (argument for a bridi), modified with {pe}. You need to convert it to a possessive sumti. This topic is covered in Chapter 8, section 7 of the Complete Lojban Language.

It says:

Although any sumti, however complex, can appear in a full-fledged relative phrase, only simple sumti can appear as possessor sumti, without a ``pe''. Roughly speaking, the legal possessor sumti are: pro-sumti, quotations, names and descriptions, and numbers. In addition, the possessor sumti may not be preceded by a quantifier, as such a form would be interpreted as the unusual ``descriptor + quantifier + sumti'' type of description. All these sumti forms are explained in full in Chapter 6.

In the phrase {le cukta pe le ninmu} {le ninmu} is the possessor without elidable terminator {ku}. {le ninmu ku} is a description in its full form, so, being a simple sumti, it is allowed to be inserted between the gadri ({le}) and the selbri ({cukta}).

> I offered:

> le le ninmu cu cukta

> Is it wrong? Answers page says "You can't do this (for now): le le ninmu

> cukta is ambiguous.". But how about "cu"?

This one is grammatically incorrect. Without the first preceding 'le' it is

le ninmu cu cukta

which is a bridi (ready relation), not a sumti (argument for it).

You then add le. But le may be added to selbri, not bridi to form a description sumti.

The correct answer is, of course,

{le le ninmu ku cukta}

In this sumti, {le ninmu ku} is an internal description sumti acting as a possessor.

Without {ku},

{le le ninmu cukta},

this phrase is not 'abmiguous', but simply incorrect.

{ninmu cukta} is a tanru type of selbri.

The first {le} attached to this selbri creates a description sumti {le ninmu cukta}.

But the second outer le runs the whole text to crash, because it is not possible to attach {le} to sumti without anything else.

Yanis Batura

------------AA1A62123E4A2A53--