Re: [lojban] re: nazycau gerku and najyzme

[pycyn@aol.com]

In a message dated 4/30/00 12:21:49 PM CST, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

<< 
la pycyn cusku di'e

><<
> za'a galfi le jufra (It seems to modify the sentence.)>>
[...]
> And will {galfi} really work: the sentence is
>unchanged and the lojban phrase is hardly an agent? {ve skicu}? [Natural 
>tight literalism in action]

Why can't a sentence be modified? Can't we say:

le nu pilno zo ba'o cu galfi lu i sidbo li'u
lu i ba'o sidbo li'u
The use of "ba'o" changes the sentence "i sidbo" into
the sentence "i ba'o sidbo".

{le jufra} has to refer to the sentence before the
modification, but that would be the case with any
object being modified, nothing special about sentences.>>

Sure, but in this case, the sentence was NOT modified and the author (I've 
forgotten who in all the layers of >>) seemed to be shooting for the 
grammatical/semantical notion. And the first place of {galfi} still is 
supposed to be an agent, isn't it, the means coming in later? [Quick check: 
no, though agent seems recommended; means are not mentioned]
<<
>.i mi pu'o ciksi zo nazyzme fo la'e lu kanba
>se cigla panci guzme li'u no'u la'e zoi gy. muskmelon .gy

i le mi vlacku cu xusra to lo cukta ka'e xusra toi
le du'u la'e zoi gy musk gy cu mirli se cigla>>

Yeah, I guess it is officially and primarily a deer, but it can be a goat and 
goats are funnier than deer (and than oxen too).