From colin@KINDNESS.DEMON.CO.UK Wed Jun 28 14:50:17 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19544 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2000 21:50:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 28 Jun 2000 21:50:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net) (194.217.242.91) by mta1 with SMTP; 28 Jun 2000 21:50:14 -0000 Received: from kindness.demon.co.uk ([158.152.216.198] helo=arac) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 137Pin-0009as-0X for lojban@egroups.com; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 22:50:13 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Complements and adjuncts Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 22:56:46 +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) In-Reply-To: <20000627013724.60020.qmail@hotmail.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal From: "Colin Fine" So you're arguing that all expressed terbri are complements (as well as omitted terbri of the brivla and sumti omitted after sumti tcita?) That would fit with their free ordering. How then would we express adjuncts? By attaching them to the whole bridi (following vau for example)? **************************************************************************** **** Colin Fine "Don't just do something! Stand There" - from 'Behold the Spirit' workshop colin@kindness.demon.co.uk **************************************************************************** **** -----Original Message----- From: Jorge Llambias [mailto:jjllambias@hotmail.com] Sent: 27 June 2000 02:37 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Complements and adjuncts la kolin cusku di'e >The question is, does Lojban distinguish complements and adjuncts? > >At first sight, the answer is yes: by design, the defined terbri of a >selbri >are complements (i.e. its meaning is incomplete without them), and any >additional terbri attached by sumtcita must be adjuncts (optional extras >specification, but not an essential part of the meaning). I think sumtcita changes the relationship expressed by the selbri. A relationship P(x,y) between two arguments is changed into a relationship Q(x,y,z) between three arguments. The meanings of the two relationships are of course related, but strictly they are no longer the same one, even though they share the same selbri word. The new relationship is more ad-hoc than the original one, but its ad-hoc meaning is incomplete without its arguments just as for the original relationship. co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Have you seen the new Whassup?! Video http://click.egroups.com/1/5999/4/_/17627/_/962069872/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com