From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Feb 05 14:52:29 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 22:52:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 77600 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 22:52:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 22:52:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.136) by mta2 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 22:52:28 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:52:28 -0800 Received: from 200.41.247.32 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 05 Feb 2001 22:52:27 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.32] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] su'u Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 22:52:27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Feb 2001 22:52:28.0123 (UTC) FILETIME=[506162B0:01C08FC6] From: "Jorge Llambias" la djan cusku di'e >It is not illegal because it is unambiguous, it is illegal >because it makes no sense to abstract a sumti. I could very easily make sense of it if it were legal. For example: mi pu kucli le du'u makau klama ije ko'a jungau mi le du'u la djan Notice that I am not saying that that makes sense in Lojban as is, only that it would be very easy to make sense of it if it were legal. >What can be abstracted >is a bridi, and a bridi must (syntactically) contain a selbri, at >least the maximally-vague selbri "co'e". Right, for syntactic reasons. Semantically, {co'e} could be understood in subclauses just as it can be in the main bridi. A single sumti as a bridi is as meaningful/meaningless as it would be in a sub-clause, and yet it is legal. co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.