Re: [lojban] GIhA question

[Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Cyril Slobin <cyril@slobin.pp.ru> wrote:
> 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"
>>               --gejyspa
>
> Hmm, THAT became interesting. What about {mi tavla gi'e citka vau}?
> Does this imply some object that is both talked to and eaten, or not?
> I don't know, really.
>
  I'd have to say that in the absence of an EXPLICIT "zo'e", they are
not inserted in the bridi tail.  And (as my example), if an explicit
zo'e is located in the bridi tail, it would have to be inserted in the
first available space (that is to say, the first place not explicitly
filled by something).  It would seem to be the most natural method of
understanding these constructions.
           --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.