From jkominek-yahoo@miranda.org Fri Jun 14 07:10:14 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jkominek@miranda.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_2); 14 Jun 2002 14:10:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 42058 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2002 14:10:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Jun 2002 14:10:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO miranda.org) (209.58.150.153) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Jun 2002 14:10:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 5463 invoked by uid 534); 14 Jun 2002 14:10:11 -0000 Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 08:10:11 -0600 To: elder_newton Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Correct terminator(s)? Message-ID: <20020614081011.A3623@miranda.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from Philip.Newton@datenrevision.de on Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 01:18:11PM -0000 X-eGroups-From: Jay F Kominek From: Jay F Kominek X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=115080544 X-Yahoo-Profile: jfkominek On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 01:18:11PM -0000, elder_newton wrote: > mi skicu lenu mi tcidu le cukta ku ku do > .i mi skicu lenu mi tcidu le cukta kei do > .i mi skicu lenu mi tcidu le cukta kei ku do > .i mi skicu lenu mi tcidu le cukta ku kei do > > I presume they can't all be correct -- or can they? If they are, is > there a difference? Which would be the preferred way? If none is > correct, what would be the correct way to say it? I feel it is worth pointing out exactly which things each of those terminators terminate. le | nu | | mi | | tcidu | | le | | | cukta | | ku | kei ku kei is the shortest in this case, as it ends the selbri following le. But what if you were going to place another selbri immediately afterwards, for instance, if you wanted "le nu mi tcidu le cukta" at the beginning of your bridi? Obviously you could use 'cu', but lets say you didn't: le nu mi tcidu le cukta se skicu mi do Obviously wrong, cu before the se could fix it, but say you tried kei instead: le nu mi tcidu le cukta kei se skicu mi do Still wrong. "nu ... kei" is a selbri, which in the above case forms a tanru with "se skicu". le nu mi tcidu le cukta kei ku se skicu mi do Is correct. The 'kei' terminates the bridi inside of nu, which also does the job of terminating 'le cukta'. Then the 'ku' terminates the 'le' before that, preventing 'nu ... kei' from modifying 'se skicu'. A tad outside of the scope of the original question, but I felt it was worth explaining what was going on. (And I hope I did so.) -- Jay Kominek Think about Python, and whitespace. -- Larry Wall