Re: [lojban] completely off-topic

[iesk <pa.fae@gmx.de>]

>That's ordinarily true, aionys, but only insofar as it's true as "ko'a blabi" is badly formed because ko'a has not been heretofore assigned with a goi. And yet, people (not me) use those kind of constructions a lot. If I were to just say "by. rajcla nixli", you should probably say "by ki'a?" or "ma goi by go'i". But nonetheless,you would probably rightly assume that "by" was standing in for something, that was not the letter itself

I interpret a bare letteral (or ko'a etc.) which has not been defined (explicitly with {goi} or by using the word it stands for in full) as I interpret a "he" or "it" or "she" in English which has no (context-)defined referent. It's grammatical but kind of a placeholder.

>I disagree with iesk that we would ever assume it is standing in for a initally-glottally-stopped word. Only alphabetics take that assumption).

I said exactly that. Sorry if it was unclear. So, agreed, of course!

>So usually, if I meant the letter itself, Iwould use "me'o by" 

Yep.

>Nonetheless, there is no reason to not assume that "denpa bu" could not in fact be implicitly standing in for me'o denpabu, if there were no contradictory assignments 

Agreed.

>So, to summarize, in ".i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o" "denpa bu" is indeed an anaphora with no antecedent, which we can assume in this case is referring to me'o denpa bu.

Fine.

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.