Re: place switching cmavo...

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

Mark:
> >From: Chris A Bogart <cbogart%INDRA.COM@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
> >On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, R.M. Uittenbogaard wrote:
> >> I always thought the places were numbered subsequently, and
> >>
> >> fo le dargu cu klama fa mi do lemi zdani le karce
> >>
> >> meant that "le karce" occupies the x4 place as well, which makes
> >> it equal in meaning to:
> >>
> >> mi klama do lemi zdani le dargu .e le karce   ,  or
> >> mi klama do lemi zdani le dargu fo le karce
> >>
> >> So instead, filled places are skipped for subsequent sumti?
> >I think you're right and Lojbab is mistaken on this one, but
> >I don't have my references here at work to look it up.
> >
> >I seem to remember a discussion on this where someone suggested
> >that (to use your example) le karce and le dargu would act
> >like appositives, supposedly naming the same thing (and I
> >forget the cmavo which would do this directly: po'u?  no'u?
> >something like that maybe...)
>
> Sorry for the long quote and short addition, but it was all relevant.
>
> So far as I remember, it was undefined/semantic error to do something like
> "la djan. klama fa la jil. fe le zdani" or otherwise try to cram two sumti
> into one place with no appropriate explanation (e.g. conjunction or
> something).  What would "le klama be fa la djan." mean?  "John, the comer?"
> Hmm.  It sounds like it should be a semantics error: if two things are the
> same, use po'u/no'u.  If they both came, use .e/joi/etc.  Is it
> semantically legal to do this kind of thing?  (I know it's syntactically
> okay).

I seem to recall John pronouncing on this and declaring that a
"twice-filled" sumti place is to be interpreted as though the fillers
were conjoined by {e}. Prior to this pronouncement, Mark's version
is correct: it was deemed gobbledygook.
---
And