[lojban] Re: sentence initial indicators

["Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On 6/24/08, komfo,amonan <komfoamonan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm guessing the rationale is that it doesn't make sense to tightly bind a
> sentences across a paragraph/topic boundary.

Presumably {ni'o ba bo} would tightly bind two paragraphs, not just two
sentences. There are grammatical ways of doing it:

tu'e ni'o .... tu'u .i ba bo tu'e ni'o ..... tu'u

But this way you have to plan ahead and it's more wordy.

> If you want to bind two
> sentences, the second one is probably not a new topic. Does it match a {ba
> bo broda} at the start of a text?

I think the {babo} construction is not normally really used to bind tightly,
as it's suposed to be, but to connect two sentences with {ba}. {ba} is the
critical word in the usage, not {bo}. Similarly for other tag-bo's. The problem
is that it can't be done unless you also bind tightly, and from the point of
view of the grammar {bo} is the more critical word.

One way would be to use {ba la'e di'u} or {ba ku} instead, but the first is too
long and the second is somewhat vague. {la'e di'u} should have been a
single short cmavo, based on its very frequent use.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


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.