[lojban-beginners] Re: ke'a

["Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On 7/22/08, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/22/08, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >>  Well, I think we'll have to disagree on this point.  To me "poi
> >> po'o" means "restricted solely to".
> >
> > OK, but that is not what {po'o} normally does. The usual
> > function of {po'o} is to indicate that the thing it marks is
> > the only one that applies.
> >
>   But it is doing that.  Like all discursives, when what it's marking
> is a (for lack of a better word) grouping cmavo, its scope is the
> entire group contained within that cmavo:

Yes, and the construct in this case is the whole poi-clause.

>  lo nanmu poi ke'a vecnu lo karce poi po'o mi viska ke'a ->
>  lo nanmu poi ke'a vecnu lo karce poi (mi viska ke'a) po'o ->

Right.

> A man who sold  cars, which were (the ones I saw) only

But (mi viska ke'a) is a bridi while (the ones I saw) is a term.
The English as bracketed doesn't correspond to the Lojban.


> > {lo karce poi mi viska ke'a zi'e poi do ponse ke'a}.
> > With {poi po'o} (as I understand it) that would not make sense.
>
>  I'm not sure I understand the last  sentence?

I meant that replacing {poi mi viska ke'a} with
{poi po'o mi viska ke'a} in that sentence, with my reading of {po'o},
would make little sense. It would be similar to saying {mi po'o .e do broda}.

> > I could say: {lo karce poi po'onai mi viska ke'a zi'e poi ji'a
> > do ponse ke'a}: "the cars not only that I see but also that
> > you own".
> >
>    I would translate that sentence the same way, but not sure you and
> I would see the same meaning?  To me it would include cars that you
> own but I do not see.

You are saying {ro da poi broda zi'e brode} = {ro da poi broda .e ro
de poi brode},
while I'm saying it is {ro da poi broda gi'e brode}. I think the CLL
description
fits my inerpretation: <http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c8/s4.html>.

BTW, in very early Lojban, {zi'e} was part of a series, with {zi'a}, {zi'o}
and {zi'u} for the other relative clause connectives,and I think also
{na zi'e nai} and such. With those, my {zi'a} would correspond to your {zi'e}.

If I remember correctly, in the Esther translation you used {zi'e} with
the inner {gi'e} rather than the outer {.e} interpretation too, but I can't
access lojban.org right now to check.

mu'o mi'e xorxes