On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 10:14 AM, najrut = <ruler11post@= gmail.com> wrote:

This makes things even more strange.
Now tell me what is the difference= between
"lo mi gerku cu xamgu" and "lo me mi gerk= u cu xamgu" ?
The first one is translated as
"lo any/some m= i gerku dog(s) [of] I, me)2 cu is/does =AB3xamgu being good=BB3]1"
and the second one as
"lo any/some (3me amongst those that are= mi I, me [type-of] gerku dog(s))3)2 cu is/does =AB4xamgu being good=BB4]1&= quot;

Yes, "lo mi gerku" meaning "my dog" is qui= te handy, but why it breaks the logic of anything learnt before ?

mi gerku means "I'm a dog" and when it is used as a sumt= i in the phrase
<lo mi gerku cu xamgu>=A0
it = must mean <"I'm a dog" is good> whatever that means.

You're creating a rule that isn't there. {lo = ... [ku]} converts a selbri into a sumti. {... mi gerku ...} can't selb= ri, so clearly something else is going on. And what's going on is that = between the {lo} and the selbri, any sumti can be interposed, so {lo <su= mti> <selbri> [ku]} is always the same as {lo pe <sumti> [ge= 'u] <selbri> [ku]} and {lo <selbri> pe <sumti> [ge= 9;u] [ku]}. It's true that you wouldn't be able to determine that i= f you didn't know it, but your proposed meaning couldn't be assumed= either.

=A0

"me mi gerku" (my dog) has much more sense as = it clear resembles "prenu gerku" (person's dog).

{prenu gerku} could mean "is a person's dog&= quot;, but that's far from the only meaning I can see for it. It sounds= more to me like "is a dog that is/acts like a person" or "i= s a dog that gets along well with people" (cf English "people per= son"), or something else.
=A0

I f= eel that the "rule" of transforming "I am" into "m= ine" when adding "lo" is absolutely alien to other lojbanic = rules.

{mi} never ever means "I am"; it always mea= ns "I" or "me" (since the English distinction between t= hose isn't one preserved in Lojban). The "am" part of {mi ger= ku} meaning "I am a dog" is because {gerku} means (in this contex= t) "am a dog". Similarly, {mi} doesn't mean "mine",= it means "me", with the (implicit} {pe} being the "associat= ed with" part.
=A0

On Thursday, August 4, 2011 6:10:49 PM UTC+4, Kevin Reid wrote:
On Aug = 4, 2011, at 6:47, najrut wrote:

> But ... is it anyway p= ossible to form tanru with pro-sumti included ?
It is possible as Jor= ge Llamb=EDas explained, with "me <sumti>" which is a conve= rsion to the selbri "x1 is <sumti>".

=A0 dei =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 me mi =A0 =A0notci
=A0 This [is a] Kevinish m= essage. =A0
--
Kev= in Reid =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0= <http://switchb= .org/kpreid/>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Lojban Beginners" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.= google.com/d/msg/lojban-beginners/-/U_CQyzqFZUUJ.
=20 To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+un= subscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/g= roup/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den.