From rob@twcny.rr.com Sat Oct 06 20:11:11 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 7 Oct 2001 03:11:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 62129 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2001 03:11:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Oct 2001 03:11:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout5.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.122) by mta1 with SMTP; 7 Oct 2001 03:11:10 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-1 [24.92.226.139]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f973B9o13421 for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 23:11:09 -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 23:10:10 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 15q4Kk-0000ja-00 for ; Sat, 06 Oct 2001 23:10:30 -0400 Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 23:10:30 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u Message-ID: <20011006231030.C2612@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: <11.1bb93260.28f0f941@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <11.1bb93260.28f0f941@aol.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer On Sat, Oct 06, 2001 at 08:18:09PM -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: > 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. Dammit, pc, this isn't a debate competition. It will not help the language to deliberately misunderstand people who disagree with you. * What are these problems that {le nei} created? You may be thinking of other things involving {nei}. {le nei} was brought up to solve the {vo'a} problem. * What follows le is a bridi by your definition, but it is not the specific entry in the parser that we usually refer to when we say "bridi". For example, you can't put {mi klama le zarci} in {le}. {le} creates a bridi out of the pseudo-bridi which follows it, and takes the x1 out of it. This bridi is not part of the sentence. * {nei} is not a bridi. It refers to a bridi. > <{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). For the purposes of clarity, let us call the specific construct of the parser which tends to contain sumti and a brivla, and optionally ends with {vau}, a BRIDI, and anything which is a predicate relation "lo bridi". poi contains a new level of the sentence. du'u contains a new level of the sentence. This is because both of these are followed by a BRIDI. {le} is not followed by a BRIDI. In some situations, as you enjoy pointing out, the thing that follows {le} could be a BRIDI on its own (an observative one, usually), but that does not matter. This does not prevent rewriting a {le} phrase with {voi}, for example - but you would have to put a subscript on {ce'u} if there was one in the {le} phrase. Situations like that are the reason subscripts for ce'u were proposed, after all. -- la rab.spir noi sarji zo gumri