[lojban-beginners] Re: du'e preti

["Michael Turniansky" <mturniansky@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Minimiscience <minimiscience@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>   2. How should overlapping places be interpreted?  E.g., in "<fe ti klama
> fa
>      mi ta>," does <ta> occupy the second or third place of <klama>?  Is
> this
>      sentence even grammatically correct?
>


     2. How should overlapping places be interpreted?  E.g., in "<fe ti klama fa
        mi ta>," does <ta> occupy the second or third place of <klama>?  Is this
        sentence even grammatically correct?

Brett says:

>It's grammatically correct but somewhat discouraged.  It's my
understanding that the "ta" goes into the same position as the "ti",
>officially.  But if that's what you mean to say, and you'd like to be
understood, you would be wiser to add an additional "fe", or much
>better yet to take care of all of your "fe"s at once, like normal,
with ".e" or some other proper connector. :)

Xorxes says:

> It's grammatical. I think the official rule is that {ta} goes in x3 there, i.e.
> the first unfilled place after the {fa} place, but it's better to avoid setting
> up such traps to the reader/listener

  And now you see why they BOTh discouraged you, since they contradict
each other.  FWIW, The CLL (chapter 9.3) says:

> What if some sumti have FA tags and others do not? The rule is that after a FA-tagged sumti, any sumti following it occupy the places
>numerically succeeding it, subject to the proviso that _an
already-filled place is skipped_...

> 3.8)  mi klama fi la .atlantas. le dargu
>        fe la bastn. le karce
>    I go x3= Atlanta the road
>        x2= Boston the car.
>    I go from Atlanta via the road to Boston using the car.

>In Example 3.8, ``mi'' occupies the x1 place because it is the first
sumti in the sentence (and is before the selbri). The second sumti,
``la
>.atlantas.'', occupies the x3 place by virtue of the tag ``fi'', and
``le dargu'' occupies the x4 place as a result of following ``la
.atlantas.''.
>Finally, ``la bastn.'' occupies the x2 place because of its tag
``fe'', and ``le karce'' skips over the already-occupied x3 and x4
places to >land in the x5 place.

    So, Jorge is correct.

>
>
>   4. Is it permissible to combine a ZAhO <cmavo> with other tense <cmavo> to
>      use as a single <sumti tcita>?  If so, am I right in thinking that a
> ZAhO
>      <cmavo> used as a <sumti tcita> alone is grammatically equivalent to
> that
>      same <cmavo> being preceded by "<ca>"?  If not, elaborate on what it
> means
>      for such a compound <cmavo> to be used as a <sumti tcita>.
>

  I can and do use ZAhO by themselves as sumti tcita, and often have
arguments with Jorge on how they hsould be interprted.  It's covered
in chapter 10, section 12.7 -> 12.13.  As for compound tenses, sure we
can interpret something like "mi pu klama ba de'a lo nu ciska"  as "I
went after taking a break from writing" (although we can't tell from
this sentence if I went while I was still on break, or after
resumption of writing, merely that I went after the start of the
break).  Others may argue this interpretation.


>
>   11. Can <finti> be used to say that one invented a physical device (which
>      would seem to contrast with its other translations)?  If not, what word
>      should be used?  If yes, how can one distinguish invention of a
> physical
>      device from composition of literature, music, et cetera?
>

  Sure.  Like many gismu, its range isn't necessarily the same as
anygiven natlang.  For example, lojban has a single word (tirxu) for
tiger/leopard/cheetah.  It can be used for any or all of them.  If
more specificity is needed/wanted (and often it is determinable by
context), you can simply add modifiers.  Since (in your case) the
what-is-invented is specified in the X2 place, it probably isn't
necessary to make a tanru etc.  If you wanted to say, for example,
"The composer died" -> "le finti be loi zgike cu mrobi'o " works fine.

>
>   20. In the HTML version of the LRG, the table in item 4 of §4.14 is
> clearly
>      not formatted properly; how should it appear?
>

b	p, v
c 	j, s
d	t
f	p, v
g 	k, x
j 	c, z
k 	g, x
l 	r
m 	n
n 	m
p 	b, f
r 	l
s 	c, z
t 	d
v 	b, f
x 	g, k
z 	j, s

  (assuming this comes through properly itself.  The letter in the
first column may be confused with the letter(s) following)

>   21. Why do the subunit <lujvo> listed in the notes for "<dekpu>" use the
> <se>
>      conversion rather than <ve>?

  By which I assume you mean why (for example) "sudyseldekpu" and not
"sudyveldekpu"?  Well, first off, those words aren't in the official
wordlist (jbovlaste), so one might say you can disregard completely.
The other answer is either a) the arument places for dekpu changed
since those words were created (it's happened in other gismu) and/or
b) it was a mistake from the get-go"

>
>   22. Why are there 768 <lujvo> that appear in the old <lujvo> list but not
> the
>      "current" one?

  The dictionary isn't (and may never be??) finalized.  The most
official, up-to-date list is jbovlaste, which anyone can basically
edit, at the risk of people voting down your definitions.  Until it is
finalized, things may go in and out of fashion, and of course, people
can also creat nonce lujvo.

    Thanks for all the questions, and welcome.

            --gejyspa (Mike Turniansky)