[lojban] Re: GIhA question

[slobin <cyril.slobin@gmail.com>]

Seems like gmail have troubles delivering my post to the list.Trying
to repost this by google groups web interface. Sorry if you are
reading this second or third 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.