From lojbab@lojban.org Mon Jul 03 00:31:31 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5474 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2000 07:31:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Jul 2000 07:31:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-4.cais.net) (205.252.14.74) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Jul 2000 07:31:30 -0000 Received: from bob (7.dynamic.cais.com [207.226.56.7]) by stmpy-4.cais.net (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e637VT413670 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 03:31:29 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from lojbab@lojban.org) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000703032712.00b19ae0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: lojban/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 03:31:40 -0400 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Complements and adjuncts In-Reply-To: References: <20000629041906.39746.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: Robert LeChevalier At 09:49 AM 07/02/2000 +0100, Colin Fine wrote: >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? Without trying to deal with your overall question, I believe it has been stated that these two are synonymous, in that the explicit use of "be" does not change the meaning. There are too many ways in which it could be made necessary to express the "be" to have the meaning be different (e.g. using "co" in a tanru or turning the bridi into a sumti on x1). lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org