Re: [lojban] soi

[Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu>]

On Friday 08 October 2010 19:37:04 Jonathan Jones wrote:
> Reading your post, I find that 1) I hate {soi}, 2) I don't understand
> {soi}, and 3) 2) is the cause of 1).

I understand "soi", in its normal usage. It's followed by two sumti which 
occur elsewhere in the sentence, or sumyma'o which refer to them, and means 
that the sentence remains true when those two sumti are exchanged.

What I don't understand is why it can be followed by only one sumti, and 
why "soi" can be attached to words, including "soi" itself, in the manner 
of "xi". ("soi xi PA" presumably can indicate which bridi is being 
reciprocated, but I'd rather put "xi" on "vo'a" to indicate which bridi's 
sumti is being exchanged.) Such sentences I regard as syntactically valid 
nonsense, like "mi du ra'o do te.u ko'a .ibi'ibo lo finpe be naku cu rodbo'e 
xi pai". 

Pierre
-- 
Don't buy a French car in Holland. It may be a citroen.

-- 
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.