From araizen@newmail.net Tue May 22 15:19:37 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 22 May 2001 22:19:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 55092 invoked from network); 22 May 2001 22:18:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 May 2001 22:18:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ci.egroups.com) (10.1.2.81) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 May 2001 22:18:59 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: araizen@newmail.net Received: from [10.1.10.103] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 May 2001 22:18:56 -0000 Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 22:18:54 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: djan. melbi vecnu Message-ID: <9eeoke+27sc@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <3B097F96.5060800@reutershealth.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 965 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 12.81.162.26 From: "Adam Raizen" John Cowan wrote: > Adam Raizen wrote: > > > > It would have been nice to have a pro-sumti which refers to whatever > > is in the prenex in a case like this. I think I'll try using "ce'u", > > since it kind of focuses the main bridi with regard to the prenex, > > though it probably would have been better to just have a different > > word. > > > You can use "ri", "ra", "ru" for this purpose, or " goi ko'a > zo'u ... ko'a ... in forethought. The sumti isn't always the previous one, and 'ra' and 'ru' are a little vague, ' goi ko'a' is too wordy to be elegant, and a lerfu word might not be clear if there's more than one sumti that begins with the lerfu as in "la nu,IORK zo'u la norm klama fi la nu,IORK". I haven't ever seen multiple sumti in the prenex when the prenex is being used as a topic marker and not a logical prenex, but it would be interesting to consider what it might mean and how it might be used. mu'o mi'e adam