[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban-beginners] Re: UI + UI
- To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
- Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: UI + UI
- From: tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:11:09 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lIWn0cM7mP8nodvMB+dda9LLqEv4AEub1UdN1o/EjB0=; b=kV9XHd2AGzuEM6L9qT50QCi7QUuBEri1C6pGxs+kTJM1rgp6gM6XtHOreSNXkU+E3D S6UfwQIvfy2tX3BGB3qAv0n7EfIaECeTumIlB31Qbo94nH27MLlA+CefB/OtGpab5HE/ 5MIg8Og+W3Dh4oYlbMLuhcmsa5CB8IFnjf000=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=uDLZG7gUNT/Tc5YPrQy+zZ4Iei6v7CvyNKrCAbQlqreJbviRj7tRfI/eSHS36anyMD BqQEg9eqHqSxjcailOC2wCKv1Fnv/ncdKNrOkvY1kvxkhwgfd7I3A51IdJsC7kASjvig XPHQfi8Wd/afd2fRAwg4kcSi+8RFkDYfc2er8=
- In-reply-to: <20090430135344.GA12798@sdf.lonestar.org>
- References: <4de8c3930904300230x2285cd3ao71e978698d5b4a15@mail.gmail.com> <20090430135344.GA12798@sdf.lonestar.org>
- Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
- Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
2009/4/30 Minimiscience <minimiscience@gmail.com>:
> de'i li 30 pi'e 04 pi'e 2009 la'o fy. tijlan .fy. cusku zoi skamyxatra.
>> The syntax for attitudinals seems to be:
>>
>> [ UI1/UI2/UI3/COI | NAI | CAI | NAI | UI4/UI5 | NAI | CAI | NAI | ... ]
>>
>> (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)
> .skamyxatra
>
> I don't know where you're getting that from.
CLL 13:8
>
Thus, the complete internal grammar of UI is as follows, with each
listed part optionally present or absent without affecting
grammaticality, though it obviously would affect meaning.
attitudinal ``nai'' intensity-word ``nai'' modifier ``nai''
intensity-word ``nai'' (possibly repeated)
<
> COI is a free modifier, not an indicator or attitudinal.
CLL 13:14
>
The vocatives actually are indicators --- in fact, discursives --- but
the need to tie them to names and other descriptions of listeners
requires them to be separated from selma'o UI.
<
mu'o mi'e tijlan