=A0

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 9:21 AM, selpa'i <<= a href=3D"mailto:m3o@plasmatix.com" target=3D"_blank">m3o@plasmatix.com= > wrote:

On 11.11.2013 01:58, Micha= el Turniansky wrote:

=A0 =A0 Simple... the compound selbri "sutra je jipci" doesn'= t HAVE an x2
place (but it does have both an s2 and j2 place which have to be
internally linked with be), similar to the way that a lujvo may not
have all the places that the underlying veljvo seltau jonai tertau
have. =A0

Okay, now I at least understand what you are saying. I find this problemati= c, as tanru are by their very nature ad-hoc, and figuring out such eliminat= ed places on the fly is likely impossible (assuming for a second that it= 9;s sensible).

If you say it has no x2, then I assume you would say that in:

=A0 =A0mi klama je sutra lo tricu

{lo tricu} actually fills klama3 and it fills neither klama2 nor sutra2. Ho= w can this be practically used? In which case it would mean:

=A0

=A0 No, I would not say that. =A0When I= said " 'sutra je jipci' doesn't have an x2," I wasn&= #39;t generalizing to _all_ broda JA brode. =A0If you SPECIFY something in = that spot, as in your sentence, you ARE saying the same as "mi klama g= i'e sutra vau lo tricu" and you darn well better be using somethin= g that can fit both of the underlying x2 places (Which obviously "lo t= ricu" cannot) . =A0What I was asserting was that since the set of all = things that are both se sutra and se jipci is an empty set (as far as I can= reasonably ascertain), it /de facto/ has no x2 place, not that it has no x= 2 place by nature of the construction.

=A0 Therefore as long as your sentence doesn't try = to put something into that place, there is no problem with asserting the se= ntence "mi sutra je jipci" is meaningful (I guess, to put it anot= her way, I am asserting that an implicit "zo'e" (but probably= not, pe'i, an explicit "zo'e") in fact doesn't have = to be something that can really exist. =A0(kind of like the way that mathem= aticians 400 years ago would all agree that the square root of a negative n= umber is complete and utter rubbish, and any student who suggested otherwis= e should be beaten with a switch until he learned the proper ways of mathem= atics, but goshdarnit,. don't all these equations and proofs =A0work ou= t nicely if we PRETEND there could be such a thing?)

=A0

=A0 =A0mi klama je sutra lo tricu
=A0 =A0"I go [and-am-fast] from the tree."

Is this not weird?

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0I don't know why this is a such a problem for you. =A0

Apart from the aforementioned practical problems your idea presents, I thin= k it's also strange for places to disappear from a *tanru*. In my opini= on, when you join two things with {je} (in this case the sumti places), the= n you claim that they both apply, not that the places disappear when nothin= g can satisfy the claim. It seems somewhat backwards.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

=A0 =A0 --gejyspa

=A0

<= /div>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Lojban Beginners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--001a11c2d386c267d204eae9b98c--