[lojban-beginners] Re: [brivla + brivla] and [brivla + KOhA]

[mungojelly@ixkey.info]

Quoting Vid Sintef <picos.picos@gmail.com>:

> 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, the tense tag "ca" can't participate in a tanru by itself.  The  
gismu "cabna" can of course, but doesn't give the sense you describe  
if inserted in that phrase: "le puzi culno cabna bo kunti" means "The  
recent full kind of now-empty thing," & makes nearly as little sense  
in Lojban as in English. :)

It seems your confusion is what role the "puzi" is playing.  It's not  
part of a tanru with zo culno; it's tense-tagging the sumti.  You can  
put all sorts of interesting tags and transformations in that  
position.  One of my favorites is that you can put a BAI cmavo, to  
make a sumti which is the sort of thing that would fill that BAI  
place, for instance: "lo bau cusku" -- the language of (an)  
expression, or "lo pi'o gerku" -- the user of a dog (maybe it's a  
seeing eye dog)!

Here's my attempt at giving the second sense you mentioned: "le puzi  
culnu po'u le ca kunti" -- the recently full one, which is identical  
to the now empty one.


> 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 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?


This actually has nothing to do with KOhA.  The "mi" is simply acting  
as a sumti.  In fact ANY sumti can be used in that position:

le le ctuca ku gerku
The teacher's dog.

le le le ctuca ku gerku ku zdani
The teacher's dog's house.

The way it works is that

GADRI SUMTI SELBRI (le ko'a broda)

is understood as:

GADRI SELBRI pe SUMTI (le broda pe ko'a)

Incidentally, "pe" doesn't actually mean ownership or possession, just  
some sense of association.  For instance if you wanted someone to pass  
you the chair that's near the TV, you could say:

.i ko dunda fi mi fe le le ve tivni ku stizu
Give me the television-related chair.

In this case the relationship indicated by the implied "pe" would be  
just that of "being nearby at the moment."

KOhA are often found in this position because they don't require a  
trailing "ku," so it's convenient to say.  Putting a complicated sumti  
there is generally more confusing than the equivalent "pe" phrase --  
but personally I enjoy writing confusing Lojban, so if you're as  
twisted as I am, this is certainly something to keep in mind. ;)

mu'o mi'e bret.