Re: [lojban] GIhA question

[Cyril Slobin <cyril@slobin.pp.ru>]

Seems like gmail have troubles delivering my post to the list. Second
attempt, sorry if you have received this second time.

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Michael Turniansky
<mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:

>  Also, if you DID want to have same unspecified-but-obvious object
> that you both talked to and ate, you could say "mi tavla gi'e citka
> vau zo'e"

After a cup of tea: I think now that you are wrong. {mi tavla gi'e
citka vau da} is equal to {mi tavla da gi'e citka da}, where {da} IS a
shared object. {mi tavla gi'e citka vau zo'e} is equal to {mi tavla
zo'e gi'e citka zo'e}, where {zo'e} IS NOT a shared object.

Unless you agree with this, you must state that either (1) adding an
elidable terminator {vau} changes a meaning of sentence, or (2) using
{zo'e} has a different meaning that an absent argument. Both seems not
plausible for me.

For the second possibility: consider me wanting to share the third
argument, not the second. I've always believed that {mi tavla zo'e da}
and {mi tavla fi da} are equivalent, and therefore {mi tavla gi'e
pinxe vau zo'e da} and {mi tavla gi'e pinxe vau fi da} are equivalent
too.

BTW, this (unlike talking to things eaten) has really happen with me
during today New Year party! ;-)

-- 
http://slobin.pp.ru/ `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said,
<cyril@slobin.pp.ru> `it means just what I choose it to mean'

-- 
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.