From xod@sixgirls.org Wed Aug 16 21:52:45 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14026 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2000 04:52:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 17 Aug 2000 04:52:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kali.sixgirls.org) (160.79.75.82) by mta1 with SMTP; 17 Aug 2000 04:52:44 -0000 Received: from localhost (xod@localhost) by kali.sixgirls.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA00675 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 00:54:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 00:54:36 -0400 (EDT) To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Even Jorge is careful with noi! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > la mark cusku di'e > > >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. > > You're right! I think I never take that into account. I always > use {noi} and {poi} (and {pe}) as if they were "outer" clauses. > It's unfortunate that the most common meaning gets the most > complicated way of expressing it. > > >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. > > I'm not sure. My feeling is that {noi} makes more sense: > I gave her a cherry, and what do you know, it had no stone. > Of all the cherries in the world I gave her one, and it so > happens that it had no stone. And not: of all the cherries > with no stone, I gave her one. Maybe I'm being influenced > by the way it is written, on a separate line. But {poi} > makes sense too. I am jumping in here without carefully studying the issue, but this sort of resembles the surprise/contrast factor of "even" to me.