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).
   
 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you like to save big on your phone bill -- and keep on saving
more each month? Join beMANY! Our huge buying group gives you Long Distance
rates which fall monthly, plus an extra $60 in FREE calls!
http://click.egroups.com/1/2567/2/_/17627/_/957171722/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com