Re: [lojban] Reading lojban textbook

["Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@lojban.org>]

At 10:55 PM 10/3/01 +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> There is an ambiguity. The word "sumti" in English is used for
> things like "ko'a", "le klama", "zo mamta", "le ka melbi", and
> so on, based just on their form,

and therefore are sumseltai of le si'o ce'u sumti

> and independently of whether
> or not they are used in any predication. We say "le klama" is
> a sumti.
>
> I suppose we could say in Lojban something like:
>
>     lu le zarci li'u sumti lu mi klama le zarci li'u li re
>
> That would mean that "le zarci" is a sumti in its relationship
> with "mi klama le zarci", not all by itself.

That is the intention of the gismu list wording

> However, the way I interpret the gi'uste, the use in Lojban
> should be something more like:
>
>     lo'e zukte cu sumti le du'u ce'u dunda ce'u ce'u kei li pa
>     "The first argument of the dunda-relationship is an agent.

How do you get this?  The gi'uste specifically says that x1 and x2 are text.

lojbab
--
lojbab                                             lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                    703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:                 http://www.lojban.org