From rob@twcny.rr.com Sun Oct 28 16:16:00 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 29 Oct 2001 00:15:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 15373 invoked from network); 29 Oct 2001 00:15:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.1.224 with QMQP; 29 Oct 2001 00:15:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout5.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.122) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 Oct 2001 00:15:58 -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 f9T0Fth08876 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 19:15:55 -0500 (EST) 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 ; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 19:15:01 -0500 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 15y058-0000KF-00 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 19:15:10 -0500 Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 19:15:10 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e Message-ID: <20011028191510.B1041@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: <20011027162600.A643@twcny.rr.com> 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 X-Yahoo-Profile: squeekybobo On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 07:09:49PM -0000, And Rosta wrote: > I don't remember the logic of zu'i ever having been explored; which category is > zu'i typical relative to? The selbri, regardless of the sumti? Or to the > whole local bridi? Or to the whole sentence? Or to the whole local bridi > following the zu'i, or what? And what do quantifications of zu'i mean? In {reda cu kanla mi}, I feel the {da} is unnecessary because of the way it assigns {da}, which could lead to running out of da/de/di if used too much. I thought of {rezo'e kanla mi}, but quantifying {zo'e} doesn't seem right to me, and it just says that two things are my eyes. This sounded too general to me - I want to say that they are not two arbitrary objects but two ordinary eyes. For example, if {ko'a} is someone with one eye, then {rezo'e kanla ko'a} if, say, one {zo'e} is the retina and the other {zo'e} is the rest of the eye. Hence I decided on {zu'i}. I think the logic of {zu'i} might tie into {lo'e} - {rezu'i kanla mi} could be {re lo'e kanla cu kanla mi}. > At any rate, I'd like to see some examples with bogus da, because I'm not aware > of any. "da" does mean nonspecific something/someone. Is it not true that if you use {da} in one sentence and again in another, without using {da'o}, it refers to the same thing? For example, is this correct? {.i reda cu kanla mi .i da blanu} -- la rab.spir noi sarji zo gumri