[lojban-beginners] Re: .imu'ibo

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, so the difference between:
> broda .ibabo brode
> and
> broda .ibaku brode
> Is that the first one is saying that {brode} happens after {broda} and the
> second one is saying that {brode} happens after (?) default of the speakers
> present?

Right. "Default" might be too strong, but yes, after something
unspecified, probably the speaker's present, maybe even after broda.
In the case of ".ibabo" it is definitely brode after broda.

> I'm probably being a little intentionally thick here.  The first time I saw
> {.ibabo} I tried to figure it out on my own and got incredibly confused when
> I got to the cmavo {bo}.  Everything prior to that made sense; [new
> sentence][in the future][tanru short scope link] ?!?!?!  Why was it decided
> to use an already used cmavo for this convention of {.i<cmavo>bo}?

"tanru short scope link" is just a case of bad gloss for "bo". Simply
"short scope link" would be better, used for tanru among other things.

   broda .ije brode .ijabo brodi

groups as:

  broda .ije (brode .ijabo brodi)

as opposed to:

  (broda .ije brode) .ija brodi

No tanru in sight.

> It seems
> to me like one of the most non-conventional parts of the language at this
> point.  Or is {bo} supposed to be more general in some way that it actually
> makes sense to use it in this other way?

"bo" is not restricted to tanru, It can be used with all afterthought
connectives, and also in the NAhE BO construction, where it
effectively turns NAhE into something like LAhE.

mu'o mi'e xorxes