From xod@sixgirls.org Mon Aug 27 20:51:56 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 28 Aug 2001 03:51:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 98269 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2001 03:51:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Aug 2001 03:51:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta1 with SMTP; 28 Aug 2001 03:51:55 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.6/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f7S3pt429156 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 23:51:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 23:51:54 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] pe BAI on tense markers In-Reply-To: <0108271853480G.01399@neofelis> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Pierre Abbat wrote: > On Monday 27 August 2001 16:30, Invent Yourself wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Pierre Abbat wrote: > > > I've figured out what "pe BAI" means, as opposed to "be BAI", in at least > > > one instance, "ba'i". > > > > > > a. ko'e zbasu le dinju lo staku be seba'i lo rokci > > > (The brick was made of something else instead of stone, maybe.) > > > b. ko'e zbasu le dinju lo staku pe seba'i lo rokci > > > (The tower was made of brick instead of of stone. > > > > Why do you see these as being any different? > > For a to make sense, "ko'i staku seba'i lo rokci" has to make sense - "seba'i > lo rokci" is modifying the brivla "staku". In b, it's modifying the sumti "lo > staku". I don't see any difference! le dinju be fi'e mi The building with creator = me le dinju pe fi'e mi The building that has creator = me Is this wrong? Somebody said pe works like be in this case. I think they quoted the book but I am too lazy to check. > In b, stone is substituted with brick in making the building. In a, stone is > substituted with something in the relationship "something is ceramic made by > someone of some material in some shape", irrespective of the relationship > "they make a building out of ceramic". > > > This is the right grammar - > > > > > I was going to say "construction", but it wasn't the right construction, > > > because God was displeased with it.) > > > c. ko'e zbasu le dinju lo staku seba'i lo rokci > > > (The making of the building was a substitute for a stone. This is > > > unclear, and might be interpreted as b or as "ko'e zbasu le dinju, > > > peseba'i lo rokci, le staku".) > > > > > > To say "instead" without saying instead of what, one can say > > > "peseba'iku". > > > > > > In the Book (or at least the webpages) there is a sentence in which a BAI > > > phrase semantically modifies not a verb, not a noun, but a tense marker: > > > > Verb? Noun? > > Brivla, sumti. BTW, what are the Lojban words for "verb" and "noun", and also > "adverb" and "adjective" for which there is nothing similar? I can't think about Lojban words in such terms. For English I suppose I would use stage three fu'ivla: glicrverbe etc; perhaps bangrverbe ----- "It is not enough that an article is new and useful. The Constitution never sanctioned the patenting of gadgets. [...] It was never the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures." -- Supreme Court Justice Douglas, 1950