Subject: Re: [lojban] Reading lojban textbook

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 11:43:15 -0400

At 10:55 PM 10/3/01 +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
>There is an ambiguity. The word "sumti" in English is used for
>things like "ko'a", "le klama", "zo mamta", "le ka melbi", and
>so on, based just on their form,

and therefore are sumseltai of le si'o ce'u sumti

>and independently of whether
>or not they are used in any predication. We say "le klama" is
>a sumti.
>
>I suppose we could say in Lojban something like:
>
> lu le zarci li'u sumti lu mi klama le zarci li'u li re
>
>That would mean that "le zarci" is a sumti in its relationship
>with "mi klama le zarci", not all by itself.

That is the intention of the gismu list wording

>However, the way I interpret the gi'uste, the use in Lojban
>should be something more like:
>
> lo'e zukte cu sumti le du'u ce'u dunda ce'u ce'u kei li pa
> "The first argument of the dunda-relationship is an agent.

How do you get this? The gi'uste specifically says that x1 and x2 are text.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email-masked]
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