From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Sun Sep 29 13:56:28 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 29 Sep 2002 20:56:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 71305 invoked from network); 29 Sep 2002 20:56:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Sep 2002 20:56:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-15.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.115) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Sep 2002 20:56:27 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-69-31.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.69.31]) by mailbox-15.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09A5A20844 for ; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 22:56:22 +0200 (DST) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: paroi ro mentu Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 21:57:59 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Jorge: > la and cusku di'e > > >1. The general rule doesn't apply when, say, {e} is within the > >scope of {na}. So it can't be taken for granted that it applies > >to the present instance. > > I used the case of {e} because it seemed to me to be more intuitive > than {ro}. Of course {e} and {ro} are equally affected by things > with scope. I believe {broda ko'a e ko'e} should always > expand as {broda ko'a ije broda ko'e}, and if that > holds, then {paroi ro mentu} has to mean "once per minute". You seem to be repeating what you originally said, rather than responding to my point, which is that {na brode ko'a e ko'e} does not expand to {na brode ko'a i je na brode ko'e}, and therefore it cannot be taken for granted that {broda ko'a e ko'e} should always expand as {broda ko'a i je broda ko'e} > >2. For {ci roi le pavdei ku joi le reldei} and {ci roi lei re djedi}, > >I would like to be sure that there is some way to say that the > >three occasions are distributed throughout the two days, such > >that {ci roi le pavdei} and {ci roi lei pa djedi} would be false. > >If that is doable, then my reservations would be assuaged. > > I don't understand why you want that. If {ciroi le jeftu} is > true, it can also be true that {ciroi le pavdei}. Similarly for > {ciroi lei ze djedi}, and {ciroi lei re djedi}. Is this {le pa jeftu}, you mean? I'm not disputing that {ci roi le pa jeftu} means what you say it does. But I was thinking that (on the scope that you argue against), {ci roi le ze djedi} means that each of the occasions happens on each ot the days, which is a potentially useful meaning. > >So what do these mean? > > > >ci roi ku ca re djedi > > -- three occasions, each occurring over two days > >ca re djedi ku ci roi > > -- occurring on two days, thrice on each day > > > >Is that right? > > That's what I would like, yes. The other possibility is that > they both mean the second, if tags never have scope over > following terms, but I don't see the advantage of that. > > >Remind me what is to be gained by using roi + sumti rather > >than roi + ku? > > That the sumti gives the exact interval in which the repetitions > occur, {ca} just gives an event with some overlap. I suppose > {ze'a ro mentu paroi} would work just as well as {paroi ro mentu}. Given that we can say what we want using ze'a and roiku, I don't suppose it matters all that much which reading is given to roi+sumti. It should be whichever is the more convenient, I guess. --And.