From araizen@newmail.net Wed Apr 10 11:44:04 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 10 Apr 2002 18:44:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 73404 invoked from network); 10 Apr 2002 18:33:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Apr 2002 18:33:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mxout2.netvision.net.il) (194.90.9.21) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Apr 2002 18:33:56 -0000 Received: from default ([62.0.183.156]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GUD00AT77KHHS@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 21:33:55 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 21:37:53 +0200 Subject: Re: [lojban] ce'u once again To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Message-id: <004501c1e0c7$36f4a140$9cb7003e@default> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <5b.25f8fd14.29e5db10@aol.com> From: Adam Raizen X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=3063669 X-Yahoo-Profile: araizen la pycyn. cusku di'e > This being one of the places where a bridi-possibility is denied in a sumti > construction. The problem remains: the so-called bridi is merely a part of a > selbri used in a sumti, as remote from a "real" bridi as the one buried after > LE (perhaps more so since it doesn't even have to have a real-world > referent). So, by the same reasoning that says the "selbri" (it isn't, of > course, really a selbri, since there is no bridi) in a simple description is > not a bridi, this expression can't be a bridi either, so {nei} can't refer to > its first term. I know the grammar is written to allow it, but that just > shows that the grammar is inconsistent with its explanation of what it is > about. If we learn the grammar as an uninterpreted system, this would be no > problem, but we learn it as an explanation of what is going on in the > langauge. As such, it breaks down at this point, one way or the other -- it > either allows something that it ought not or disallows something that should > get in. This is waht I mean by saying picking the middle possibility is not > an obvious choice, even if it is officially the right one. I agree that logically the two constructions are identical, but this is a grammatical rule dictated by the grammatical structure, and not a logical rule. In particular, since you can say 'ko'a poi broda gi'e brode' but not 'le broda gi'e brode', I think that the two structures are significantly different. If we were designing Lojban from scratch, I would support putting an entire bridi after 'le', but we're not and that can't be changed now. mu'o mi'e .adam.