Re: [lojban] GIhA question

[Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
> On Sunday 02 January 2011 00:28:42 Michael Turniansky wrote:
>>   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.
>
> I don't think that an explicit "zo'e" in this construction would do anything
> different from leaving it out. The only places I know of where an
> explicit "zo'e" means anything different from omission is in a subordinate or
> relative clause, where "ce'u" or "ke'a" would be assumed to fill an omitted
> place and "zo'e" indicates that the place is in fact empty.
>
> Pierre
> --
  I am asserting an analgous situation -- bridi tails are always
assumed empty (they are implicitly zo'e filled before the GIhA and
vau) unless an explicit zo'e fills them.
       --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.