Re: [lojban] ka'e/kakne & mapti/sarxe

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Remo Dentato <rdentato@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2012/2/20 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>> But wouldn't the obvious interpretation of that be "I can be eaten by you"?
>>
>> mi kakne lo nu [mi] citka
>> mi kakne lo nu do citka [mi]
>> mi kakne lo nu do citka lo plise [gau mi]
>
> I must confess it wouldn't be obvious for me, but this is an
> interepretation I can buy in.
>
> It would be that kakne1 is to be replaced to the first unspecified
> sumti of the abstraction kakne2.

That's not what I'm suggesting though. All I'm saying is that kakne1
is, by the meaning of kakne, involved in some way in the event kakne2,
but what this involvement is need not always be made explicit, since
it is grammatical to omit arguments from a bridi. The first
unspecified sumti is a reasonable choice, as long as it makes sense.
If the first unspecified sumti slot could not take a person, it
wouldn't make much sense to interpret the implicit "mi" as filling
that slot. It is context that dictates what fills the unfilled slots.

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.