Re: [lojban] Lions and levels and the like

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 12:02 PM, maikxlx <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Wouldn't it make the most
> sense to simply understand x1 as the relevant sumti? In other words
>
> (1) {x1 ka'e [selbri] x2 x3 [...]} would be a transformation of:
>
> (2) {x1 kakne lo nu ce'u [selbri] x2 x3 [...]}, and vice versa.

But then how would you understand:

(3) ka'e ku ge ko'a broda gi ko'e brode

I understand it as "cumki fa lo nu ge ko'a broda gi ko'e brode".
Presumably you would understand it as "ge ko'a kakne lo nu broda gi
ko'e kakne lo nu brode", yes?

And what about:

(4) ka'e ku ge no da broda gi no de brode

For me it's "cumki fa lo nu ge no da broda gi no de brode" and for you
it would be "ge no da kakne lo nu broda gi no de kakne lo nu brode"?

So "ka'e", despite all appearances to the contrary, just jumps inside
the scope of any bridi operator in sight?

What about:

(5) "ka'e ku ko'a na broda"

or:

(6) ka'e ku ge nai ko'a broda gi nai ko'e brode

I don't understand why, when the syntax provides such simple answers,
people want to complicate interpretations so much.

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.