From pycyn@aol.com Sat Mar 30 11:41:54 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 30 Mar 2002 19:41:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 98460 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2002 19:41:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Mar 2002 19:41:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d07.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.39) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Mar 2002 19:41:53 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.12a.ec9d1a4 (4584) for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 14:41:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <12a.ec9d1a4.29d76efa@aol.com> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 14:41:46 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] ce'u once again To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_12a.ec9d1a4.29d76efa_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_12a.ec9d1a4.29d76efa_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/30/2002 12:25:34 PM Central Standard Time, phma@webjockey.net writes: > On Saturday 30 March 2002 12:59, pycyn@aol.com wrote: > > le ka la fred bilma cu du'u ce'u zmadu le nu la djorj bilma le du'u ce'u > > kei rinka le nu le bilma cu roble > > That says that George's symptoms are the fact that ... then the clause is > aborted with {kei} with no selbri yet, so it doesn't parse. > See corrections sent directly after original. <> le ni la fred bilma cu zmadu le ni la djordj bilma le ni ce'u rinka le nu > le bilma cu roble That says that George's symptoms are the amount of causation.> Ditto <. {lenu la fred. bilma cu zmadu lenu la djordj. bilma kei leka ce'u rinka leka ce'u ruble} sounds pretty clear, even though the first ce'u is the illness and the second is Fred or George. {leni ... leni} may be better.> I'd say {leni} {le ni} {le ni} {le nu} (indeed, did say). The last {le ka} is almost certainly wrong with {rinka}. I would say that the one before was a property of events of causing, not a property of cases of illness (see first suggestion), but that is only one construal of the mess in Refgram and Lojbab's mind. Still, I'd replace that {ka} with {du'u}, to ease worries about where the {ce'u} might be hiding, if nothing else. And so would we all, I hope -- or something very like. --part1_12a.ec9d1a4.29d76efa_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/30/2002 12:25:34 PM Central Standard Time, phma@webjockey.net writes:


On Saturday 30 March 2002 12:59, pycyn@aol.com wrote:
> le ka la fred bilma cu du'u ce'u zmadu le nu la djorj bilma le du'u ce'u
> kei rinka le nu le bilma cu roble

That says that George's symptoms are the fact that ... then the clause is
aborted with {kei} with no selbri yet, so it doesn't parse.


See corrections sent directly after original.

<> le ni la fred bilma cu zmadu le ni la djordj bilma le ni ce'u rinka le nu
> le bilma cu roble

That says that George's symptoms are the amount of causation.>

Ditto

<. {lenu la fred. bilma cu zmadu lenu la djordj. bilma kei
leka ce'u rinka leka ce'u ruble} sounds pretty clear, even though the first
ce'u is the illness and the second is Fred or George. {leni ... leni} may be
better.>

I'd say {leni} {le ni} {le ni} {le nu} (indeed, did say).  The last {le ka} is almost certainly wrong with {rinka}.  I would say that the one before was a property of events of causing, not a property of cases of illness (see first suggestion), but that is only one construal of the mess in Refgram and Lojbab's mind. Still, I'd replace that {ka} with {du'u}, to ease worries about where the {ce'u} might be hiding, if nothing else.

<If I weren't teaching about abstractions and subordinate clauses, I'd say
{lenu la fred. bilma cu blerikmau lenu la djordj. bilma}.>

And so would we all, I hope -- or something very like.





 --part1_12a.ec9d1a4.29d76efa_boundary--