From lojbab@lojban.org Mon Sep 10 16:24:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 10 Sep 2001 23:24:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 34730 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2001 23:17:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Sep 2001 23:17:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-5.cais.net) (205.252.14.75) by mta3 with SMTP; 10 Sep 2001 23:17:35 -0000 Received: from user.lojban.org (dynamic231.cl8.cais.net [205.177.20.231]) by stmpy-5.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f8ANHV145308 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2001 19:17:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010910173626.00acbf00@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: vir1036@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:53:04 -0400 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] pe BAI on tense markers In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 09:33 PM 8/29/01 +0100, And Rosta wrote: >Xod: >[...] > > > > On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Pierre Abbat wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > >le se dinju pe fi'e mi = the building-purpose that has creator = me >le se dinju be fi'e mi = that whose relationship with the building it is > the purpose of involves creator me >le se dinju be zo'e pe fi'e mi = the purpose of the building whose creator > is me > >Or? In the "be fi'e mi" version, the fi'e mi is being attached to the subordinate predicate zo'e dinju le se dinju fi'e mi, because "be" is used to attach sumti to that hidden subordinate predicate. This might therefore be used for the purpose of the architect/builder in building the building. With "pe fi'e mi" we are not referring to the subordinate predicate dinju, but instead conjuring up some unspecified predicate about le se dinju which involves me as an inventor/creator (not necessarily of le dinju), and which because of pe vs ne serves to restrict le se dinju. This might be used either for the meaning described for the be version, or the building-purpose of a building associated with mi as builder of Lojban (even though I had little to do with the building itself. In many ways the pe usage is more tied to the bridi that le se dinju is used in, serving to indicate something relevant about le se dinju in the context of that main bridi. Some members of BAI can float freely in a bridi because they don't (ce'u-like) associate with one particular sumti of that bridi, but rather with the bridi as a whole. Others have to associate with a particular sumti, such as mi ne semau la djan cu melbi lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org