From araizen@newmail.net Sun Apr 08 15:04:34 2001
Return-Path: <araizen@newmail.net>
X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 8 Apr 2001 22:04:34 -0000
Received: (qmail 12964 invoked from network); 8 Apr 2001 22:04:34 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Apr 2001 22:04:34 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ei.egroups.com) (10.1.2.114) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 Apr 2001 22:04:34 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: araizen@newmail.net
Received: from [10.1.10.125] by ei.egroups.com with NNFMP; 08 Apr 2001 22:04:33 -0000
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 22:04:29 -0000
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Bible translation
Message-ID: <9aqn9d+qh99@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <F307kNzPZrIkyPzGNso00001125@hotmail.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 898
X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster
X-Originating-IP: 62.0.181.223
From: "Adam Raizen" <araizen@newmail.net>

--- In lojban@y..., "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@h...> wrote:

> >2) Termsets are awkward for "gapping" (when the selbri of the
second
> >sentence is implicitly that of the first). With termsets, the terms
have
> >to be next to each other (with no intervening selbri), and they
also add
> >extra cmavo. I believe it used to be grammatical to put a bare list
of
> >sumti after "ije", which would be a much easier and more natural
way to
> >specify gapping.
> 
> You're right, it seems that it is no longer grammatical!
> You can still do it without {je}:
> 
> i le moklu be mi le nunmi'a cu se culno i le tance be mi
> le geirselsanga
> 
> but it is strange that you can't do it with {ije}.
> 

It seems it came about when the scope of "ije" was reduced to allow a
prenex to cover an entire conjunction of 2 complete bridi, but I'm
still not sure why it can't have a list of terms.

co'o mi'e adam