From pycyn@aol.com Mon May 21 01:34:13 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 21 May 2001 08:34:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 73082 invoked from network); 21 May 2001 08:34:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 May 2001 08:34:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r11.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.65) by mta3 with SMTP; 21 May 2001 08:34:12 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.10.) id r.8.149efb33 (25101) for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 04:34:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8.149efb33.283a2cfe@aol.com> Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 04:34:06 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] djan. melbi vecnu To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_8.149efb33.283a2cfe_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_8.149efb33.283a2cfe_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/20/2001 2:32:04 PM Central Daylight Time, jcowan@reutershealth.com writes: > Not at all. The "zo'u" construct can be either a logical prenex > or a topic in a topic-comment sentence. > Unfortunately true, but note that, as usage gets worse (in the examples given on p.468 omit even non-topic sumti), intelligibility drops toward the expected null. On the other hand, it is pretty clear that in approximately good usage, the fronted sumti is either the first unfilled place or is anaphorized. Other possibilities defy the conventions of cooperative communication, given Lojban conventions (I don't know about Chinese conventions, but I suspect that the examples of that are either viewed as dirty tricks or have a standard interpretation). The fact that we can talk drivel does not make it good form to do so. --part1_8.149efb33.283a2cfe_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/20/2001 2:32:04 PM Central Daylight Time,
jcowan@reutershealth.com writes:



Not at all.  The "zo'u" construct can be either a logical prenex
or a topic in a topic-comment sentence.




Unfortunately true, but note that, as usage gets worse (in the examples given
on p.468 omit even non-topic sumti), intelligibility drops toward the
expected null.  On the other hand, it is pretty clear that in approximately
good usage, the fronted sumti is either the first unfilled place or is
anaphorized.  Other possibilities defy the conventions of cooperative
communication, given Lojban conventions (I don't know about Chinese
conventions, but I suspect that the examples of that are either viewed as
dirty tricks or have a standard interpretation).
The fact that we can talk drivel does not make it good form to do so. --part1_8.149efb33.283a2cfe_boundary--