From jjllambias@hotmail.com Tue Sep 26 16:43:52 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_0_3); 26 Sep 2000 23:43:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 12924 invoked from network); 26 Sep 2000 23:43:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 26 Sep 2000 23:43:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.158) by mta1 with SMTP; 26 Sep 2000 23:43:52 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 16:43:52 -0700 Received: from 200.42.117.153 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 23:43:52 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.42.117.153] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Get Much Ca$h ! Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 23:43:52 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Sep 2000 23:43:52.0262 (UTC) FILETIME=[A024A660:01C02813] From: "Jorge Llambias" > >The cmavo list is not always very precise. go'e repeats the > >bridi only when used as the whole bridi, but go'e itself > >is a brivla. Any brivla is a whole bridi when used by itself. > >I disagree with you. go'e and go'i repeat the whole bridi - the brivla AND >the specific sumti that were associated with that brivla in the referenced >bridi. I don't disagree with you. But {go'e} itself is a brivla, not always used as a bridi. It is a brivla that takes its meaning from a bridi. It is grammatically a brivla. It is used as a brivla. {le go'e} makes reference to the x1 of {go'e}, not to a bridi. That is what the question was about. You must use {le du'u go'e} to refer to the bridi, you can't use {le go'e} to refer to the bridi. >Thus le go'e or le go'i are referring to the x1 of that particular >bridi, just as le klama refers to the x1 of some presumed bridi >relationship based on klama. Exactly what I said. We agree. >Remember that the original use of the word is in answer to a yes/no >question, which repeats the bridi asked about in that question. When did I forget that? >Likewise >the pro-bridi usage "go'i ra'o" would be meaningless if go'i did not >implicitly include some specific sumti values to be preserved by the ra'o. I never said it didn't. {go'i} is a brivla with all those meanings and implicit arguments. >go'i has the grammar of a brivla, but unlike most brivla, it comes with >specific values implied by default for all of its sumti, specifically all >of those of the referenced bridi. Exactly. So the cmavo list is not very precise in labeling it as a bridi. We agree, really. co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.