Re: [lojban] sumti with relative clause

Subject: Re: [lojban] sumti with relative clause

From: "Adam COOPER" <adamgarrigus@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 09:22:41 -0500

Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=ROFqP7U6oRMKjoI9Y40t0NJYb3BQxc1nr0kNJJ8bhD5YmLqlS0p3BuvHtaIHls/djyVdtuwfRc++37cyt2cwFiOM/Kt4GxvAm6nEucu0k8mx+Hg87u9DDAY5OY9un9/ZLC6wo82POmAH/Tt1Gt39ckWDyVAXk3AW4va1DuDqFZc=

In-reply-to: <20060321170502.R49527@mail.sksys.net>

References: <20060321170502.R49527@mail.sksys.net>

Sender: nobody <nobody@digitalkingdom.org>

Cyril Slobin

slobin@sksys.net

coi rodo

Playing jboselkei, I was to comment the translation containing {ro
nae'bo la djil noi zutse}. I am in doubt whether {noi zutse} applies
only to {la djil} (as author of translation assumes) or to the whole
sumti {ro na'ebo la djil} (as I guess)? Jbofi'e output is opaque.

Which version is correct?

jboski says

[₁(₂ro every (of) (₃na'e not bo (₄(₅la djil. [NAME])₅ <₆noi ,which.., [₇«₈zutse sit-ing»₈]₇>₆)₄)₃)₂ ]_{1

So {noi zutse} modifies only {la djil}}mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan

Follow-Ups:

Re: [lojban] Re: sumti with relative clause
- From: Alex Joseph Martini <alexjm@umich.edu>

References:

sumti with relative clause
- From: Cyril Slobin <slobin@sksys.net>