Re: [lojban] Attitudinal scales and the meaning of {cu'i}

[Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>]

2010/5/13 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Michael Turniansky
<mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm quite willing to say that [na]cu'i/ru'e/sai/cai are context dependent,
> in the same way that "jai" or "bo" do different things in different
> contexts.

Not quite in the same way though. BO and JAI are purely structural,
they add no meaning of their own, they only add structure to a text.
On the other hand, selma'o CAI is purely semantic, not structural.

(I understand why you might say that BO has more than one function,
but why JAI? It always does the same thing: it changes the argument
structure of the selbri by removing the x1 from first position and
replacing it with a non-core argument.)

I don't know, it always seems to me like JAI BAI and JAI SELBRI don't really function in quite the same way, meaningwise.  (And what exactly does JAI PU do?  Does anyone use it?  Examples?)

> Some things are
> already in common use, for example za'u roi

Why is "more than once" not compositional?

If you mean "za'u re'u", "a time after the first one", it also seems
compositional to me.

   I did mean that, yes,


 

>   This is probably heresy, though...

Nothing wrong with heresy, as long as you don't mind the heat. It can
get hot at those stakes. :)

 u'i
      --gejyspa
 

-- 
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.