On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 10:35:59 PM UTC-4, gejyspa wrote:
No "tu poi le mlatu pu lacpu cu ratcu" does not mean "that-distant-thing which dragged the cat, is-a-rat" The first place of lacpu (the puller) is filled by the "lo mlatu" (think of the sentence "le mlatu pu lacpu" -- "the cat pulled (something)". ) We are saying "that over yonder, which the cat pulled, is a rat." How do we know this? Because we assume that the ke'a goes right after the lacpu, and is the thing pulled, since the first place is filled. (conceivably, it might be the te lacpu, the thing which the cat is pulling something by, but that's unlikely to be a rat).
According the preceding explanation of poi the first sumti of the subordinate clause if filled be reference if ke'a is not given. That would be tu.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 7:36 PM, TR NS
<tran...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 6:39:51 PM UTC-4, xorxes wrote:
You can discuss it here, sure. You can also check if it's something that has already been detected in:
Thanks!
In section 1, Example 1.8, the description says "ke'a can be omitted if it is clear to the listener that it belongs to in some place other than x1." Then the example is "tu poi le mlatu pu lacpu cu ratcu". I see two problems with this. 1) It is very un-lojban like to suggest the listener can just reinterpret the sentence based on subjective "clarity". While I understand that there is always some undertone of subjective/contextual interpretation going on, this case is rather clearly not one of them. Which leads me to the second problem 2) the example literally says "that-distant-thing which dragged the cat, is-a-rat". Not that the cat dragged the rat, which it says it is equivalent to in example 1.5. Also, it's easy enough to fix by adding a `se` before `lacpu`. There isn't any need for ambiguity, and I don't think such even needs to be suggested.
HTH .trans.