From pycyn@aol.com Tue May 09 08:34:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16298 invoked from network); 9 May 2000 15:21:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 May 2000 15:21:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d10.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.42) by mta1 with SMTP; 9 May 2000 15:21:41 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id a.79.3d4c181 (4417) for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 11:21:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <79.3d4c181.264986fc@aol.com> Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 11:21:32 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: Intro and Questions To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows sub 33 From: pycyn@aol.com In a message dated 5/8/00 6:39:41 PM CST, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: << Subj: Re: [lojban] RE: Intro and Questions Date: 5/8/00 6:39:41 PM CST From: jjllambias@hotmail.com (Jorge Llambias) To: lojban@egroups.com la pycyn cusku di'e >Not exactly my problem. {zo zo'u} is a well-formed sumti. For some >well-formed sumti, S -- all the LE and LA ones at least, and I think some >others -- you can form a new sumti by prefixing LE+X. That happens to be true, I think, but it is a strange way to put it. It is not even the most general case. To prefix a LE to a sumti what you need is that it have an explicit outer quantifier. Is that what you mean by X? >What is the condition >on X that allows this? At a guess, it has to be that X+ S is itself a >well-formed sumti and it is strictly this to which the LE is prefixed. If by X you mean a quantifier, that is correct. If you mean something like {do}, then no, it doesn't work. {le do ci le gerku} is a well formed sumti, but {do ci le gerku} is not.>> So X has to be a quantifier -- but LE may be LE+ sumti, apparently. << >So >the fact that LE absorbs {do} and {vi} into new LE is irrelevant except >that >LE S alone is not a sumti. To say that LE absorbs {do} is at least suspect. And I don't see how you can say that it absorbs {vi}. In {le vi broda} if anything {vi} is absorbed by {broda}, it is part of the selbri that makes up the sumti-tail. For example, if you want to add an internal quantifier it will be {le ci vi broda}, not what you'd expect if {vi} was absorbed by {le}. I know that in Loglan {vi} and {do} are taken to be part of the article (modifiers of the article?) but in Lojban this is not at all the case, unless you take a very superficial view. If you look at all the structures it just doesn't work.>> You might think that, after all the times I have learned this language, I would think first of the contamination from the last language (but one, typically) when I get into a problem. In this case, I admit that I was aided by finding the missing piece so useful: Suppose I have {le so nanmu} and then {ci le so nanmu vu sanli ije ci le so nanmu va sanli} and then I want to talk about the first group: I can't griceanly say {le ci le so nanmu}, nor can I use {le vi nanmu}, since breaks the connection with the original group. {levi ci le so nanmu} would be just what I want. On the other hand, I does appear that LE still absorbs {do} -- indeed Sumti generally (some exceptions?) -- LE+ Sumti can go anywhere LE can go except in front of another sumti in front of yet another sumti or sumti tail -- not a good way to put it in YACC terms, admittedly.