From nicholas@uci.edu Fri Aug 24 22:20:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: nicholas@uci.edu X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 25 Aug 2001 05:20:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 57141 invoked from network); 25 Aug 2001 05:20:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 25 Aug 2001 05:20:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO e4e.oac.uci.edu) (128.200.222.10) by mta3 with SMTP; 25 Aug 2001 05:20:23 -0000 Received: from localhost (nicholas@localhost) by e4e.oac.uci.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA13732; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 22:20:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: e4e.oac.uci.edu: nicholas owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 22:20:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: To: Cc: Nick NICHOLAS Subject: Re: mine, thine, hisn, hern, itsn ourn, yourn and theirn (was[lojban] si'o) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Nick NICHOLAS la pier. ba'o facki la'edi'e: > tanru_unit_B_152 : ME_477 sumti_90 MEhU_gap_465 MOI_476 Oh my God. There is only one explanation for this, which is that Lojban Central wanted normal sumti, and not just numbers, to be ordinals. So you can say the apple-th man, or the I-am-going-to-the-store-th instance of insubordination. Please God, someone tell me this isn't so. Did Lojban Central really intend this? With MOI?! On this one --- not for reasons of the supplicatory model any more, but for reasons of psychological research --- I'd like an answer. What is that rule meant to mean? ... I found this in the refgramm; dunno whether it answers my question, but it horrifies me even more: *** It is perfectly possible to use non-numerical sumti after ``me'' and before a member of MOI, producing strange results indeed: 11.15) le nu mi nolraitru cu me le'e snime bolci be vi la xel. cu'o The event-of me being-a-nobly-superlative-ruler has-the-stereotypical snow type-of-ball at Hell probability. I have a snowball's chance in Hell of being king. Note: the elidable terminator ``boi'' is not used between a number and a member of MOI. As a result, the ``me'u'' in Example 11.14 could also be replaced by a ``boi'', which would serve the same function of preventing the ``pa'' and ``moi'' from joining into a compound *** I'm going to have to say this again. No, don't stop me. I really really mean it. ... This construction should have died in the arse. How absolutely spiffy. We have a special construction in the language, just for being able to say "I have a snowball's chance in hell" as a numerical sumti. Well, live by the baseline, die by the baseline. So be it; .i ku'i lenu mi ba pilno lu me zo'e moi li'u cu me le'e snime bolci bevi le fabri pe la daptutra me'o cu'o [P.S. No flame intended to the author of the example, who I know was scrambling for something to illustrate this.] -- == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == Nick Nicholas, Breathing {le'o ko na rivbi fi'inai palci je tolvri danlu} nicholas@uci.edu -- Miguel Cervantes tr. Jorge LLambias