From pycyn@aol.com Tue Sep 04 18:40:57 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 5 Sep 2001 01:40:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 3149 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2001 01:40:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Sep 2001 01:40:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d03.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.35) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Sep 2001 01:40:55 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.7d.1a60c924 (3924) for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 21:40:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7d.1a60c924.28c6dca4@aol.com> Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 21:40:52 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] the set of answers To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_7d.1a60c924.28c6dca4_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_7d.1a60c924.28c6dca4_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/4/2001 8:30:01 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes > la pycyn cusku di'e > > >On the issue of the relation between interrogative and relative phrases, it > >is worth noting that, except for {du'u} with cognitive predicates that > >demand > >a proposition, each of these indirect questions has an essentially > >equivalent > >direct form > >{la bab dunli la bil lo ni ce'u clano}, {la dubias frica la tclsys lo mamte > >be ce'u} > > That would require {la dubias frica la tclsys la babras}. It doesn't > sound right to me. > > The same goes for the others: {la bab dunli la bil li xapi'emu}? > Put that way, it doesn't look right. The point, taken from the English "with respect to their mothers" or some such, is that the values of the functions for the two arguments are different (in the first case, same in the second). Let me think on what is missing in this pattern, which looked good an hour ago -- and even betteer when I woke up at three last night. <(I'm taking {ni} here as {jai sela'u}, as you are, not as {ka sela'u makau} as commonly used.)> I'll claim I am using just plain old {ni} which may or may not have anything to do with {sela'u} wherever it is stuck. That is a separate issue I haven't followed through on yet. --part1_7d.1a60c924.28c6dca4_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/4/2001 8:30:01 PM Central Daylight Time,
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes



la pycyn cusku di'e

>On the issue of the relation between interrogative and relative phrases, it
>is worth noting that, except for {du'u} with cognitive predicates that
>demand
>a proposition, each of these indirect questions has an essentially
>equivalent
>direct form
>{la bab dunli la bil lo ni ce'u clano}, {la dubias frica la tclsys lo mamte
>be ce'u}



That would require {la dubias frica la tclsys la babras}. It doesn't
sound right to me.

The same goes for the others: {la bab dunli la bil li xapi'emu}?


Put that way, it doesn't look right.  The point, taken from the English "with
respect to their mothers" or some such, is that the values of the functions
for the two arguments are different (in the first case, same in the second).  
 Let me think on what is missing in this pattern, which looked good an hour
ago -- and even betteer when I woke up at three last night.

<(I'm taking {ni} here as {jai sela'u}, as you are, not as
{ka sela'u makau} as commonly used.)>
I'll claim I am using just plain old {ni} which may or may not have anything
to do with {sela'u} wherever it is stuck.  That is a separate issue I haven't
followed through on yet. --part1_7d.1a60c924.28c6dca4_boundary--