From pycyn@aol.com Thu Aug 24 11:26:14 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9892 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2000 18:26:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 Aug 2000 18:26:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d06.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.38) by mta3 with SMTP; 24 Aug 2000 18:26:13 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id a.6b.8e08d6a (4554) for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 14:26:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <6b.8e08d6a.26d6c2c2@aol.com> Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 14:26:10 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] pro-bridi To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41 From: pycyn@aol.com I gather the point of the two examples on p.151, 5.5 and 5.6, is that the assignment of the pro-bridi comes right after the selbri, as it does in both these cases (it happens that in one the two end together). This is not said explicitly, but makes sense in comparison with the prosumti cases. I suppose always putting the assignment at the end of the whole brivla also makes sense, it just doesn't happen to be the pattern chosen (cf. na, for example). Is it grammatical? If so, it could be used as an alternate version. Yes, "nonexistent" was a bad word choice for {zi'o}-- especially since most of the examples are of existent but ignored arguments (the builder, house, and material). "elliminated" would be more nearly correct. But notice that the argument is non-existent, not "a nonexistent" or something meaning that.