From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Jul 02 12:10:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31904 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2000 19:10:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 2 Jul 2000 19:10:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.134) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Jul 2000 19:10:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 25588 invoked by uid 0); 2 Jul 2000 19:10:56 -0000 Message-ID: <20000702191056.25587.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.42.154.203 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 02 Jul 2000 12:10:56 PDT X-Originating-IP: [200.42.154.203] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: RE: [lojban] Complements and adjuncts Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 12:10:56 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed From: "Jorge Llambias" la kolin cusku di'e >ta xelflaka'i be la kalifornias ra'i la ilinOIs The problem at least with this example is that you are saying that the relationship between representative and constituency hails from Illinois, when I suppose you mean that just the senator is from there. That would be: ta pe [ra'i] la ilinOIs xelflaka'i la kalifornias >I guess what I am asking is whether >ta xelflaka'i be la kalifornias ra'i la ilinOIs >and >ta xelflaka'i la kalifornias ra'i la ilinOIs >are synonymous, or does the structural difference have a semantic >correlate? I think {be} has the effect of the Curry operator that was mentioned the other day. It reduces the number of arguments that the realtionship has by incorporating one of them into the relationship word itself. But I can't now think of an example where this makes much semantical difference. co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com