From mark@kli.org Wed Aug 16 07:02:44 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16587 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2000 14:02:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Aug 2000 14:02:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pi.meson.org) (209.191.39.185) by mta1 with SMTP; 16 Aug 2000 14:02:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 24169 invoked by uid 1000); 16 Aug 2000 13:59:29 -0000 Date: 16 Aug 2000 13:59:29 -0000 Message-ID: <20000816135929.24168.qmail@pi.meson.org> To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Careful with noi! From: "Mark E. Shoulson" la xorxes. cusku di'e: >>"I gave my love a cherry That had no stone; I gave my love a chicken That >>had no bone; I gave my love a ring That had no end; I gave my love a baby >>With no cry-in'." >lu mi dunda fi le mi selpa'i lo grutrcerasu >noi claxu lo tsiju >i mi dunda fi le mi selpa'i lo jipci >noi claxu lo bongu >i mi dunda fi le mi selpa'i lo djine >noi claxu lo fanmo >i mi dunda fi le mi selpa'i lo cifnu >noi claxu lo nu klaku li'u Careful. If I read my Codex Woldemar aright, on page 178 (Section 8.6), what you have here is a "noi" clause in the "inner" relative clause position of "lo", which is pretty dangerous. The inner quantifier of "lo" is "ro", so "lo grutrcerasu noi claxu lo tsiju" means that you're giving one or more cherries, of which *all* incidentally lack seeds. Ditto for a chicken out of all chickens (which by the way lack bones), and so on. You either need the "ku" before the "noi", or better, use a restrictive relative clause ("poi"), which makes more sense anyway. I gave her a cherry... which one? One of those that lack stones. And so on. co'omi'e .mark.