From pycyn@aol.com Sat Oct 06 17:18:18 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 7 Oct 2001 00:18:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 40955 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2001 00:18:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 7 Oct 2001 00:18:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r09.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.105) by mta2 with SMTP; 7 Oct 2001 00:18:17 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.11.1bb93260 (3951) for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 20:18:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <11.1bb93260.28f0f941@aol.com> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 20:18:09 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_11.1bb93260.28f0f941_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_11.1bb93260.28f0f941_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/6/2001 6:44:29 PM Central Daylight Time, rob@twcny.rr.com writes: > 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 > As you will recall, {le nei} created a number of problems on its own. If if were nonsense, then perhaps it would not be used and the problems would disappear -- or thin out a bit anyhow. But anyhow, {nei} clearly IS a bridi, so what occurs after {le} can be a bridi, which was the point I was making to begin with. Thank you for your support, even though it goes against what you just said. <{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.> Muddled, but I gather that the point is that, although {mamta be ce'u} is a bridi by the definition, it is not something else that someone might want to call a bridi -- something that constitutes a separate level in a Lojban sentence. Is there a sense to this notion of level that you can spell out, so that (at a guess) something after a {du'u}, say, is in a new level, but something after LE is not. What about {poi} and the like? On the one hand, they clearly seem to be separable and eventually parallel to the main clause, on the other hand, they are just the predicate part of a LE phrase written in a different way (according to one of And's tales, anyhow). Notice, by the way, that, when this is all done, And will -- if he is successful -- have proven that {ce'u} is not a sumti in {le mamta be ce'u}, something that I conceded fairly early on, indeed insisted on. I apologize for being a terrible writer, but I don't really think I am THAT bad. --part1_11.1bb93260.28f0f941_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/6/2001 6:44:29 PM Central Daylight Time, rob@twcny.rr.com writes:


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


As you will recall, {le nei} created a number of problems on its own.  If if were nonsense, then perhaps it would not be used and the problems would disappear -- or thin out a bit anyhow.  But anyhow, {nei} clearly IS a bridi, so what occurs after {le} can be a bridi, which was the point I was making to begin with.  Thank you for your support, even though it goes against what you just said.

<{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.>

Muddled, but I gather that the point is that, although {mamta be ce'u} is a bridi by the definition, it is not something else that someone might want to call a bridi -- something that constitutes a separate level in a Lojban sentence.  Is there a sense to this notion of level that you can spell out, so that (at a guess) something after a {du'u}, say, is in a new level, but something after LE is not.  What about {poi} and the like? On the one hand, they clearly seem to be separable and eventually parallel to the main clause, on the other hand, they are just the predicate part of a LE phrase written in a different way (according to one of And's tales, anyhow).

Notice, by the way, that, when this is all done, And will -- if he is successful -- have proven that {ce'u} is not a sumti in {le mamta be ce'u}, something that I conceded fairly early on, indeed insisted on.  I apologize for being a terrible writer, but I don't really think I am THAT bad.
--part1_11.1bb93260.28f0f941_boundary--