Re: [lojban] Re: {le} in xorlo

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Daniel Brockman <dbrockman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I actually think zo'e should not include zi'o.  My basic assumption is
> that zo'e should always be exactly equivalent to leaving the sumti
> out.

Ideally, that's how it should be. But in practice, some gismu have
such terrible place structures that the alternatives are (1) accept
the official place structure and assume that the unwanted place is
filled with a silent "zi'o" (an explicit zi'o has the opposite effect
of calling attention to the place instead of keeping it out of mind),
or (2) use the gismu as if it had a more sensible place structure, in
which case "zi'o" is not needed, and there is no need for a silent
"zo'e" to be standing for it because there is no place there to begin
with. Personally, I go with (2), and so I don't really need "zo'e" to
stand for "zi'o". Not that any of this has any practical consequences
one way or the other, it's just how someone can explain it to
themselves.

> And I don't think {klama} can mean {klama zi'o}.  That's because zi'o
> alters the predicate fundamentally.  So it's maybe no longer {klama}.
>
> For the same reason, I think {klama} should not include {to'e klama}.

What's "to'e klama"? Are you thinking of come/go? They are both "klama":

klama ti = comes here
klama tu = goes there

it's just that English uses different verbs depending on whether the
destination is close to the speaker or not.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.