[lojban] Re: jordis

[jordi mas <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

> > > Perhaps spelling out how she pertains would
> emphasise further, as would
> > > bringing her nearer the front of the sentence:
> > > {do fi le speni be ba'e mi ku tavla}
> > Now that we are at it, why not even
> > nearer, like this:
> > {fi ba'e le speni be mi be'o fa do tavla}
> 
> I originally wrote something like that, then deleted
> it. It felt wrong. I
> *think* the reason is this: the natural order of
> things is for each sumti to
> fill the argument-place succeeding the previous
> sumti. Whenever you mess with
> that order you force the reader to juggle the sumti
> into another place - which
> draws attention to the sumti. Maybe.
> 
> So assuming my analysis is accurate: in the above,
> {do} is emphasized - which
> wasn't wanted.

I agree completely with your analysis, at least 
in the sense that the reason that it felt wrong
is that for you all displacements from what you
feel to be the natural place draw attention. 

> > But anyway --- are you sure that displacing sumti
> towards the front to show
> > emphasis is not malrarbau?
> 
> Well it's certainly an informal and inexact way of
> doing it, whether or not it
> works for not-just-natlang reasons - which makes it
> arguably unlojbanic. I
> think CLL mentions that it is generally understood
> this way, but what
> difference that makes I'm not sure.

Somehow I feel it to be unlojbanic, but don't
ask me why.

Which of the following three statements
do you feel to be more accurate?

(1)  CLL says {mi tavla do}, {do se tavla mi},
{mi do tavla}, {tavla fa mi do}, {tavla fe do fa mi},
{fe mi fa do se tavla}... mean exactly the same
thing. 

(2) In practice people do use {do se tavla mi} for
{ba'e mi tavla do} though CLL says they shouldn't.

(3) according to CLL, {do se tavla mi} is short for 
{ba'e mi tavla do}.

Thanks!

--jordi



=====



		
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com