Re: [lojban-beginners] Implied {ko}

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:28 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> ok, so maybe it was a poor example.  How about {lo se danlu be lo gerku cu
> se zbasu zo'e lo lanbi joi lo djacu joi li'o}.

(You need some sumti after the last "joi". "li'o" is a UI, not a KOhA.)

> If I said this in a room
> full of biologists the obvious {zo'e} is {zi'o}.  I seem to remember seeing
> an example like this somewhere or other.

When you say things like "the obvious {zo'e} is {zi'o}" you are
thinking that the word "zo'e" is replacing some other word. But it is
not. "zo'e" is a word with referents, provided by the context. "zi'o"
is not such a thing.

> So are you saying that {zo'e} is inappropriate here?

I would say "zbasu" is the one that is inappropriate, since that is
not the relationship that they want to claim.

> Also, I'm a little uneasy about the fact that it sounds like you're saying
> that {mi citka noda} is something very similar to {mi na citka}.

What about it makes you uneasy? They are indeed very similar,
practically identical in meaning:

no da zo'u mi citka da
= naku su'o da zo'u mi citka da

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
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.