From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Wed Oct 03 10:01:27 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 3 Oct 2001 17:01:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 58227 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2001 17:01:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Oct 2001 17:01:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta2 with SMTP; 3 Oct 2001 17:01:26 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Wed, 3 Oct 2001 17:38:47 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 03 Oct 2001 18:10:58 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 18:10:17 +0100 To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] Reading lojban textbook Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta >>> Jay Kominek 10/03/01 03:44pm >>> #On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, And Rosta wrote: #> >>> Jay Kominek 10/02/01 06:10pm >>> #> #On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Alex Gontmakher wrote: #> #> In Lesson 04: #> #> #> #> .i ma cu sumti zo klama #> #> #> #> shouldn't it be: #> #> #> #> .i zo klama sumti ma #> # #> #Without looking at the context, I can tell you that the word "klama" is= n't #> #a sumti, so "zo klama sumti" is going to be wrong. #> # #> #"klama" is however, a brivla, so "sumti zo klama" makes sense. #> #> I see nothing wrong with "zo klama sumti ma": although "klama" #> is not a valid sumti, "zo klama" is. It might, for example be a sumti #> of brivla "melbi", say. # #lu le klama li'u na du lu klama li'u # #x1 and x2 of sumti obviously have to be some sort of quoted text (or #reference to it), and the thing which is a sumti is the text being quoted, #not the quotation. I find there to be a persistent and insidious ambiguity in Lojban between g= rammatical categories and logical ones. So it seems to me as though Sumti c= an be a relation between phrases or between things. If it can be a relation= only between phrases, then your remarks are correct. --And.