[lojban-beginners] Re: ke'a

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

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

  That's a lack on the part of English.  If you consider that "poi mi
viska ke'a" is basically semantically equivalent to "po'u lo viska be
fa mi bei ke'a" (or, more naturally, "po'u lo se viska be mi"), you
might see what I mean.  If we were to speak more stilted English, the
original might be rendered "A man who sold cars, which
(fulfilled-the-condition I saw them) solely"

>> > {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}.
>

  Are you saying that "mi po'o .e do broda" doesn't make sense to you?
 It has meaning to me.  It means that you broda, and no one else but
me also brodas.  Consider something like the English, "Besides Johnny,
no one else in the class but me knows all state capitals."

>> > 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}

  I most certainly am NOT saying that.  "ro da poi broda zi'e brode"
is not grammatical.

> 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.

       --gejyspa