On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com> wrote:We could say that "djuno" is a sumti raising predicate, in the
>
> {djuno2} is actually a ka, but we pretend that it isn't because the gimste
> made its definition clumsy to use that way. Indeed, the djuno2 is a property
> of the djuno3.
linguistic sense of "raising"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_(linguistics) since its x3 is the
semantic argument of an embedded predicate. The same can be said of
almost all predicates that take a ka-argument. (There are a couple of
oddball predicates that the gi'uste says should take ka but are not in
this category.)
mu'o mi'e xorxes
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.