From rob@twcny.rr.com Sat Oct 06 16:44:00 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 6 Oct 2001 23:44:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 67742 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2001 23:44:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Oct 2001 23:44:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout6.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.125) by mta3 with SMTP; 6 Oct 2001 23:43:59 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-0 [24.92.226.74]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f96Nh0H11330 for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 19:43:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from riff ([24.92.246.4]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 19:42:59 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 15q16E-0000J2-00 for ; Sat, 06 Oct 2001 19:43:18 -0400 Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 19:43:18 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u Message-ID: <20011006194318.C566@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer On Sat, Oct 06, 2001 at 06:56:24PM -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: > > pc, your entire argument seems to revolve around this incorrect statement. > > There is no subordinate bridi in {le mamta be ce'u}. You can gripe all you > > want > > that it would be more "linguistically correct" if that were considered a > > bridi, > > but at this point it sounds just like tinkit claiming hexadecimal is the > > See definition of {bridi} provided in same note. Sloppy usage is common, but > no reason why we should follow it or let someone use it to grind us down. > Let And keep chinging what he says until he finally gets something that is > nontrivial and true. {mamta be ce'u} is what you're saying is a bridi, right? It is a relationship among arguments, true. What it is not is a separate level of a Lojban sentence, because it is preceded by {le}. Articles like {le} refer to what would fill the x1 of a bridi which corresponds to what comes next. They do not actually include that bridi in the sentence. If the construction which {le} starts is a considered a separate one of what we call "bridi" for convenience, then {lenei} becomes utter nonsense. {la djan viska lenei}: John sees himself However, if {nei} is counted as a bridi even though it is part of a {le} clause: {la djan viska lenei}: John sees something which is itself -- la rab.spir noi sarji zo gumri