[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban-beginners] Re: la
- To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
- Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: la
- From: "Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:34:29 -0300
- Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=gaKHgkk1p3nO6140E4YcXPhdCD+8HDmzueYiLz0khwDThvH8qLSTfYAAcyiN92zacDm+rVBE+4TUWO9BTxjXAq3dIsMdm/WpY1FLSILxKz+ogOJWN2NK7Zpj2SqLBbYOi2y21QPvF7XH7JvkU00EDQlZhUSUtIkk/s3BUo7OqWQ=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=T394zluUlzme6b0ZnBp/tAubR+XnpksODek+5OFRJHMtY4EWfgRX7/hDhrgLUqp58wEjAuwB6Sf9cDXSqsw/PjRgDdgQ8crp2kV9jPfNLETKYg8mF/hKAbsM/zaek8/lYnsWqNQU1GIzG5m0kycbxIUCEDYfC9z6qVtay01eDVI=
- In-reply-to: <1182197650.4676e792850d9@ssl0.ovh.net>
- References: <1182197650.4676e792850d9@ssl0.ovh.net>
- Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
- Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
On 6/18/07, m.kornig@sondal.net <m.kornig@sondal.net> wrote:
Hi again,
Consider the following sentences:
{mi'e klaus.} {mi'e pat.}
{mi'e la klaus} and {mi'e la pat} are valid too.
on the one hand and
{la pat. melbi .i la klaus. prami la pat.}
on the other.
On the one hand you have the names {klaus.}
and {pat.}. Then you have the people {la klaus.}
and {la pat.}.
The names are actually {zo klaus} and {zo pat}.
{klaus} and {pat} are somewhat like brivla. You can say
{le pondo}, or {coi pendo}, but if you want to talk about the
word it's {zo pendo}.
At least this is my understanding
of the presence of {la} in the second set of
example sentences.
Why can't Lojban just identify people with
their names (as all other languages seem to do)?
Some languages do use articles with names.
{la} seems to be an unnecessary complication. Why
can't we just say {pat. melbi .i klaus. prami pat.}?
I would actually prefer to go the other way and make cmevla have
the exact same grammar of brivla, rather than just a very similar one.
mu'o mi'e xorxes