[lojban-beginners] Re: ke'a

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

On 7/23/08, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  I agree that this means the intersection of those two things,
> covering only those that both went and were not summoned.  The
> question has never been one of how zi'e and poi interacts, but how
> that interacts with po'o to modify the argument of a bridi.

I believe you did object to the way I read {zi'e}, but I agree that that
is just a side issue, which I introduced to explain how I understand
what it means for {po'onai} to mark a relative clause. For me {po'onai}
marking a clause indicates that the relative clause in question is not
the only one that applies. So in my example there was a second
relative clause marked with {ji'a} to stress that that second clause
also applies. (NOT to indicate that the things that satisfy the second
clause are added to the things that satisfy the first clause.)

> If we say
> that those people were killed, does that mean that ONLY those people
> are killed?  Not without the use of a po'o.  And depending on where
> the po'o is positioned will determine who else might have been killed.

In my reading {po'o} indicates "this clause is the only restriction that
applies", in your reading, {po'o} indicates "only the people that satisfy
this clause are involved".

Your reading may be valid as a convention, but it is not the usual
way {po'o} operates, because you are using it to mark a whole
clause, not to mark a sumti that refers to the people.

mu'o mi'e xorxes