Am 01.10.2012 22:04, schrieb Arnt Richard Johansen:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:56:59AM -0700, la gleki wrote:These examples are pretty clear. No ambiguity. Now let's open Chapter 11.4 http://dag.github.com/cll/11/4/ 4.9) la djan. cu zmadu la djordj. le ka mi prami ce'u John exceeds George in-the property-of (I love X). This is something very strange. Let's imagine that I'm a boy and I meet a girl. I tell her {do melbi mi lo ka ce'u clani} Does {ce'u} refer to {do} or {mi}?Neither. {ce'u} does not refer to anything, and that's sort of the whole point. The clause refers to a “property” of being tall *in the abstract*, not that of someone in particular being tall.
Yes, but the ce'u place gets filled later by one of the sumti in the parent bridi, and that is what the question was about.
* lo ka mi clani my height * lo ka do clani your height * lo ka lo penbi cu clani a pen being long
These are very non-standard, and probably many would call them incorrect. The only way I can see to make these work is to say that "lo ka mi clani" is to be interpreted as "lo ka mi no'u ce'u clani", or else the "ce'u" would end up in a different sumti place and the meaning would change drastically.
* lo ka clani being long (OR being a dimension of length OR being a standard of length)
Right, but much more than with "ke'a", where this is handled much more loosely, the convention is that "ce'u" fills the first empty slot.
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i -- pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo doị mèlbi mlenì'u .i do càtlu ki'u ma fe la xàmpre ŭu .i do tìnsa càrmi gi'e sìrji se tàrmi .i taị bo pu cìtka lo gràna ku -- 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.