[lojban-beginners] Re: leaving a sumti out

["Adam D. Lopresto" <adam@pubcrawler.org>]

Yes, that's the normal case.  But in this particular case, {go'i troci},
{go'i} is being used in a tanru.  It carries all of its filled places with
it.  The {la .djan.} in the second part is filling the x1 of {troci}, but
there's nothing replacing the x1 of {go'i}, because the places of the seltau
are really only bound with {be} and such.  If it were

.i la .djan. troci go'i

then yes, the x1 of {go'i} gets overriden with the new x1 supplied, and
{troci} doesn't have any places filled.

On Fri, 18 May 2007, Turniansky, Michael [UNK] wrote:

>   I respectfully disputer your interpretation of go'i, Adam.  From the
> CRG, Chapter 7:
> 
> "6.9)   mi klama le zarci .i do go'i
>     I go-to the store.  You [repeat last bridi].
>     I go to the store.  You, too.
> 
> Note that Example 6.9 means the same as Example 5.6, but without the
> bother of assigning an actual broda-series word to the first bridi. "
> 
>   What is example 5.6?
> 
> "5.6)  mi klama cei brode le zarci .i do brode
>     I go-to (which-is claim-1) the store.  You claim-1
>     I go to the store.  You, too.
> 
> In the second bridi, ``do brode'' means ``do klama le zarci'', because
> ``brode'' carries the x2 sumti of ``mi klama le zarci'' along with it.
> It also potentially carries the x1 sumti as well, but the explicit x1
> sumti ``do'' overrides the ``mi'' of the antecedent bridi. (Similarly,
> any tense or negation that is present in the antecedent is also carried,
> and can be overridden by explicit tense or negation cmavo on the
> pro-bridi.)"
> 
> 
>   Note the use of the word "override".  The places are replaced, not
> added to.
> 
>             --gejyspa
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
> [mailto:lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org] On Behalf Of Adam D.
> Lopresto
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 10:13 AM
> To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
> Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: leaving a sumti out
> 
> On Fri, 18 May 2007, Vid Sintef wrote:
> 
> > A sentence from Lojban Reference Grammar Chapter9:
> > 
> > la djan. klama le zarci .i la djan. go'i troci
> > 
> > Can "la djan" in the second sentence be left out since "go'i" should
> imply
> > all sumti related to the selbri of the last sentence?
> 
> Sort of.  {go'i} does carry over all the sumti, but it carries them
> attached
> to the {go'i}.  That is, in
> 
> la .djan. klama le zarci
> .i go'i troci
> 
> The latter bridi is equivalent not to {.i la .djan. klama be le zarci
> be'o
> troci}, but to {.i klama be fa la .djan. bei le zarci be'o troci}.
> 
> In fact, in the example given, the second sentence is actually
> equivalent to
> {.i la .djan. klama be fa la .djan. bei le zarci be'o troci}, where John
> is
> the x1 of both klama and troci.
> 
> > Also, can a repeating "ko" be left out, without connecting the selbri
> with
> > "gi'e"?
> > That is, is
> > 
> > ko lebna ta .i dunda lo cnino vanju botpi mi
> > 
> > instead of
> > 
> > ko lebna ta .i ko dunda lo cnino vanju botpi mi
> > 
> > possible? Or would that "dunda" without "ko" loose the intended
> imperative
> > sense?
> 
> It's certainly possible, in that it's grammatical and legal.  But
> without
> specifying the x1 of {dunda}, you're leaving it implicit.  So I don't
> think
> it would normally be considered an implicit imperative, unless context
> were
> overwhelming.  
> 

-- 
Adam Lopresto
http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/

Just because I have a short attention span doesn't mean I