Re: [lojban] Re: mi kakne lo bajra

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 12:32 AM, John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
[on "dunda"]
>
> xorxes' point (though not how we would put it) is that, if it does involve a change of ownership, then it is likely that any raising involved (I forget what the structure of dunda' is, so I am not clear  where the raising come in), it may be illegitimate (in the semantic/logical sense -- it is always grammatically allowed).

That doesn't sound like my point.

My point in bringing up dunda was that the gi'uste says: "x2 may be a
specific object, a commodity (mass), an event, or a property;
pedantically, for objects/commodities, this is sumti-raising from
ownership of the object/commodity", and that fortunately nobody pays
any attention to that comment. There is no sumti-raising involved in
"mi dunda lo plise do". Especially not pedantically, i.e. when using
"raising" in its standard sense.

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.