Am 07.08.2012 20:47, schrieb Jonathan Jones:
No. Despite the wording the CLL uses, a NU itself has no places at all.On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 4:50 AM, ianek <janek37@gmail.com> wrote:
You basically confirmed what I was saying, but you formally disagreed
with me. I don't understand. {se} acts on selbri, BAI, JA and some
other things, but not on NU. It acts on selbri built with NU, just
like in your examples.
{se} acts on /anything/ with an x2. {du'u} is a NU which has an x2.
No, it doesn't. SE want to act on selbri (among other things like connectives and TAGs), but NU are *not* selbri. If they were, you could say *{ko'a du'u} or *{lo du'u ku}, but you can't.
On 7 Sie, 09:47, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 1:15 AM, ianek <jane...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "cmavo clusters" in jbovlaste are somewhat messy, from what I've seen.
> >http://camxes.lojban.org/camxes/?text=se+du%27u+broda
>
> The {se} still acts on {du'u}, not {du'u broda}.
Abstractions are selbri. abstractors (which you call "abstraction markers") are not. They do not have places. All that a NU does is *convert*. It converts a bridi into a selbri. Then you can apply SE on that selbri. The selbri which was created by the NU, *that* has a place structure, depending on the NU used.
>It's easier pe'i to see it as switching x1 and x2 of {du'u broda},
> Whatever comes after a NU, until the {kei} (elided or not), is "eaten" by
> the NU.
>
> So {[zo'e] du'u broda [kei] [zo'e]} means "x1 is predication "broda"
> expressed in sentence x2".
>
> {se} merely switches the x1 and x2 of {du'u}.
because places are primarily property of selbri, not abstraction
markers.
Abstraction markers /are/ selbri. That's why they have places.
No, it's not.
> So, for example:Yes, and how it proves me wrong? I know all that, of course. {du'u mi
>
> du'u mi nelci lo blanu kei zoi gy. I like Blue. .gy
>
> and
>
> .i zoi gy. I like Blue. .gy se du'u mi nelci lo blanu
>
> are equivalent.
nelci lo blanu kei} is a selbri with two places and can be converted
with se. Why do we need to assume that SE act on NU if such assumption
is not needed to explain the grammar?
Because it's not an assumption. It's a fact.
No comment.
I love how you still treat me as a complete co'a cilre.
No, I treat you like some who apparently needs to read the relevant section of the official text on our language.
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
-- .i pau mi me ma .i pa mai ko mi jungau la'e di'u .i ba bo mi va'o lo nu nelci lo nu me ma kau cu barkla .i va'o lo nu na nelci cu denpa ti lo nu mi drata--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.