From pycyn@aol.com Thu Feb 14 12:37:34 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 14 Feb 2002 20:37:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 65347 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2002 20:37:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Feb 2002 20:37:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r10.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.106) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Feb 2002 20:37:34 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.29.22a46ca7 (3925) for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:37:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <29.22a46ca7.299d7a02@aol.com> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:37:22 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Non-logical AND in Tanru? To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_29.22a46ca7.299d7a02_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_29.22a46ca7.299d7a02_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/14/2002 12:01:27 PM Central Standard Time, thanatos@dim.com writes: > 4. ckule befa ta melbi je nixli I would have thought that this needed {co}, unless you really want {ckule} modifying {melba je nixli}. If that is what you want, then neither 3 nor 4 are at all like 1 and 2. And indeed not readily comprehended: "lo, a this-is-a-school type of beautiful thing and girl." It is somewhat easier without the {be fa ta}. I suppose this is technically true, though we don't usually don't worry about it, since the ambiguity covers most cases but putting the terms in doesn't relieve it much. They generally turn out to be "the obvious" or "it doesn't matter." Though I tink that figuring the sumti out might be illuminating. What exactly is wrong with {ta melba je nixli ckule}? To be sure it can mean other things, but this is pretty clearly the first pick. {ju'e}, if it can be used here, such makes the ambiguity worse. --part1_29.22a46ca7.299d7a02_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/14/2002 12:01:27 PM Central Standard Time, thanatos@dim.com writes:


4. ckule befa ta melbi je nixli



I would have thought that this needed {co}, unless you really want {ckule} modifying {melba je nixli}.  If that is what you want, then neither 3 nor 4 are at all like 1 and 2.
And indeed not readily comprehended: "lo, a this-is-a-school type of beautiful thing and girl."  It is somewhat easier without the {be fa ta}.

<The sumti places of each selbri in a tanru still exist wherever the
selbri may appear in a text; the question was how sumti were assigned to
those places.  The Book never explicitly defines the method for jeks
along with saying "this is how sumti are assigned to selbri connected by
jeks...".>

I suppose this is technically true, though we don't usually don't worry about it, since the ambiguity covers most cases but putting the terms in doesn't relieve it much.  They generally turn out to be "the obvious" or "it doesn't matter."  Though I tink that figuring the sumti out might be illuminating.

<So if "That is a school for beautiful things and also for girls" is an
interpretation of {ta melbi joi nixli ckule}, how *does* one achieve
"That is a beautiful school and also a girls' school" in the fewest
number of syllables?
{ta melbi ju'e nixli ckule}?>

What exactly is wrong with {ta melba je nixli ckule}? To be sure it can mean other things, but this is pretty clearly the first pick.  {ju'e}, if it can be used here, such makes the ambiguity worse.



--part1_29.22a46ca7.299d7a02_boundary--