DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;        b=Uo2RwqMlOcJJRJRzUoJ4INl2iGWjI6wRobx4FPONDsN4RR8ilqEwSve1Y7MRLtdtX7fIsLQcLwjGIgWQiJru8yt+fVkLFDV+OwDzvSXJO8/lu3rjBp+3eSyenNUboOJ24Bona08x0SufQqtyVkEbA2w3F23BO7POPz2ETu41Dkc=
Message-ID: <925d17560712190431q1c8bf777jf453253128df590a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:31:32 -0300
From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: [brivla + brivla] and [brivla + KOhA]
In-Reply-To: <2f91285f0712190341v73c9fdala3239516ef54e2e9@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <2f91285f0712190341v73c9fdala3239516ef54e2e9@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Content-Length: 1659

On 12/19/07, Vid Sintef <picos.picos@gmail.com> wrote:
> Some pretty much basic questions.
>
> I forgot how the following expression is unambiguous:
>
> { le puzi culno ca kunti }
>
> The given translation is "The one full just a little time ago is now
> empty", so it is meant to be a complete bridi consisting of the sumti
> { le puzi culno } and the selbri { ca kunti }. But is it not also
> possible that the two brivla { culno } and { kunti } make up one
> sumti, meaning "the full-just-a-little-time-ago-kind-of now-empty
> one"?

No, tanru units cannot have their own tag (except within ke-ke'e
brackets). The tense applies to a whole selbri, not to an individual
tanru unit. You can get the other reading with ke-ke'e:

 {le ke puzi culno ke'e ke ca kunti [ke'e]}

That's a single sumti.

> Similarly:
>
> { ko zbasu lo cnino [ku] ti } (Make a new one from this.)
>
> { ko zbasu lo cnino ti [ku] } (Make a new kind of this one.)

The second one is ungrammatical. To use a sumti as a tanru
unit you need to convert it with {me}:

{ko zbasu lo cnino me ti [ku]}

> The two expressions are identical in appearance, which I think is the
> case with every instance of the sequence "descriptor + brivla + KOhA".
> And people almost always elide the delimier { ku } before KOhA. If it
> is that KOhA cannot join a brivla to form some tanru-like unit like
> the one above, why such other sumti constructs like { le mi zdani } is
> valid?

In {le mi zdani}, {mi zdani} is not a tanru. {mi} is a modifier similar
to a relative clause, inserted between {le} and the following selbri.
In fact {le mi zdani} means the same as {le pe mi zdani}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes