From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Mon Sep 24 03:02:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 24 Sep 2001 10:02:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 82609 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2001 10:02:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.223 with QMQP; 24 Sep 2001 10:02:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n23.groups.yahoo.com) (10.1.2.83) by mta1 with SMTP; 24 Sep 2001 10:02:36 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Received: from [10.1.2.52] by ck.egroups.com with NNFMP; 24 Sep 2001 10:02:35 -0000 Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 10:02:33 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: go'i in nested bridi Message-ID: <9on0bp+bj74@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1260 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 62.104.218.70 From: "A.W.T." Is it allowed to use {go'i} within a description-abstraction to refer to a "last" bridi within a preceding description-abstraction _on the same level_? (lenu broda be lenu A bei lenu A...) If not - how can repetition of the same bridi be avoided? Example on: http://nuzban.wiw.org/wiki/index.php?jitri%27u%20%20xu%20venfu >From the Book p.155, 6.14, I gather that a (even deeper nested) description-abstraction of a bridi is part of the _same_ bridi, hence {nei} is to be used: mi se pluka lenu do pensi lenu nei kei... (with {nei} referring to "mi se pluka...") This seems to be different with "sentence" parts like "ca lenu broda" which obviously seem to be regarded not only different from the "main" bridi, but also standing in a relationship "inner/outer" bridi. Hence the use of {no'a} in p. 156, 6.15: mi ba klama ca le nu no'a What difference is between the "lenu nei"part (of the pluka example) and the "lenu no'a" part (of the klama example) to justify the different GOhAs? If it's the "ca" prefix making the latter a *separate* bridi - okay, but why then regard it to be in an "inner/ outer" relationship to the klama bridi, although being on the same level (whereas not in the pluka example, although deeper nested there)? mu'o .aulun.