[lojban-beginners] Re: CLL p 95 - huh?

[Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>]

On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 03:27:23AM -0500, Hal Fulton wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> >
> >No; <tertau> co <seltau>; <modified> co <modifier>; zdani co
> >blanu.
> >
> 
> Ohh, yes, of course. That's a large part of my confusion, getting
> those mixed up.
> 
> >>What if I wanted to add internal sumti to the tertau in an
> >>inverted tanru? Could I do it?
> >
> >zdani be mi co melbi le speni be mi
> >
> 
> OK... (house-of-me)-ish beautiful to-(spouse-of-me)  ??
> Myhousefully-beautiful to spouse-of-me?

No; that would be {zdani be mi melbi le speni be mi} (note the lack
of co).  Remember, the gloss for co is "of type", so it's "house of
me of type beautiful to my spouse".

> Hmm. Does this amount to an observative {zdani} with some
> decoration??

Yes, but what you said would be an observative of melbi.

> If we add {ta}...
> 
>   ta zdani be mi co melbi le speni be mi
> 
> That is a my-house-ish type-of beautiful to-(my-spouse) ??
> 
> Is this saying something like "That is my house, and it is
> beautiful to my spouse"?

Yes, but that's not what you said.  What you said is "That is a
house-ish beautiful thing".

> Could I say (without inversion):
>    - ta zdani be mi be'o cu melbi le speni be mi

Illegal unless you drop the cu.  If you drop the cu the meaning
changes a lot, and you're talking about a house-ish-ly beautiful
thing instead of a beautiful house.

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/