Subject: Re: [lojban] su'u

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 22:52:27

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.