From lojban-out@lojban.org Sat Sep 28 15:04:28 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 28 Sep 2002 22:04:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 64717 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2002 22:04:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Sep 2002 22:04:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Sep 2002 22:04:28 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17vPk3-0000Iz-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 15:07:15 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17vPjA-0000Ia-00; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 15:06:20 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 28 Sep 2002 15:06:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17vPj6-0000IR-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 15:06:16 -0700 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g8SMAMGZ045287 for ; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 17:10:22 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g8SMAMTj045286 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 17:10:22 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 17:10:21 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: paroi ro mentu Message-ID: <20020928221021.GA45141@allusion.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 1683 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out --qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Sep 28, 2002 at 08:58:47PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote: > la djorden cusku di'e [...] > >For > >example > > baku mi klama la romas. .e la paris. > >means > > mi ba klama la romas. gi'e ba klama la paris. > > mi ba klama la romas. .ije mi ba klama la paris. >=20 > Does that say that my going to Paris happens after my going to > Rome? No. I believe that would be mi ba klama la romas. .ijebabo mi klama la paris. > >and not > > mi ba klama la romas. gi'e klama la paris. >=20 > But nobody suggested that {paroiku} would apply to the first > connectand only. I would have said: >=20 > baku zo'u ge mi klama la paris gi mi klama la romas This works in this case, but as we discussed it's not something you can generally do unless you move every other tense (and in the paroi case, move everything with a quantifier) into the prenex also to preserve order. For example, if there were other tense-modals in the selbri tag or floating at different locations, a transformation such as this would order, just like the paroiku example. > I don't think this establishes which of Paris or Rome is gone > to first. If distributing {ba} makes no difference to the > meaning, I don't see how this helps us to decide whether > {paroiku} can be distributed or not. Consider one that clearly > does make a difference: >=20 > ta'eku mi klama la paris e la romas >=20 > This is: >=20 > ta'eku zo'u ge mi klama la paris gi mi klama la romas > Typically, I go both to Paris and to Rome. I agree with the first line (though, as I said above it doesn't work in the general case without moving other shit into the prenex also) but I think your translation to english is bad. I think the sentence means the translation you give for the next sentence. To get the sentence you said, I think you would need either ta'eku mi klama la paris. jo'u la romas. or ta'eku mi klama la paris. joi la romas. > Is this the same as: >=20 > ta'eku mi klama la paris ije ta'eku mi klama la romas > Typically I go to Paris, and typically I go to Rome. >=20 > I don't think it is. Or use {ta'enai} for an even more clear case. Why not? It seems like the correct interpretation to me. Where are you getting the idea that it should be otherwise? I think the connectives chapter is pretty clear on this, but i'll reread it now just in case. mu'o --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9lijNDrrilS51AZ8RAuAQAKC0aRZtV/NQyavqUwmVVaAa6VxRJACfeZmL MVSAX5vaEIgdBLHwUlvK70A= =FEfn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk--