[lojban] Re: catni - 4

["Mark E. Shoulson" <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

I don't think Yanis made the mistakes you saw...


HeliodoR wrote:

>     doi daVID. mi na tolcertu be la lojban. 
>
>  
> "mi na tolcertu la lojban."

It is also perfectly correct to say {tolcertu be la lojban}.  
Semantically, in a construction like that, there's no difference between 
the forms.  The {be} binds the second sumti more tightly to the selbri, 
making it actually part of the selbri, but since there's nothing after 
it, the changed precedences don't matter.

>     .i lo du'u do ka'e fanva so'a da la lojban. cu xamgu
>
>  
> "lo nu do [...]"

Maybe {nu} would be better; the distinctions among the abstractors can 
be hard to pin down.

>     .i ni'i lo go'i do ka'e la'a fanva zoi gy. authority .gy. la
>     lojban. .iku'i pe'i do na kakne
>
>  
> "ni'i lo nu go'i [...]"

No, {lo go'i} makes perfect sense here.  {lo go'i} is the x1 of the 
previous sentence, and that x1 is {lo du'u do ka'e fanva...}.  It's not 
because of {the fact that {the fact that you can translate into Lojban} 
is good}, it's because of {the fact that you can translate into Lojban}.

Usually for {lo nu go'i} I've seen {la'edi'u}, which is similar, though 
less specific.

~mark


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.