From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun May 27 14:08:06 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 27 May 2001 21:08:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 72219 invoked from network); 27 May 2001 21:08:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 May 2001 21:08:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.170) by mta2 with SMTP; 27 May 2001 21:08:04 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 27 May 2001 14:08:04 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.244 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 27 May 2001 21:08:04 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.244] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Request for grammar clarifications Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 21:08:04 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 May 2001 21:08:04.0368 (UTC) FILETIME=[1EBE7900:01C0E6F1] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e >I will yield to more expert opinion on this, but reasonableness and The >Book >both suggest that {de'i} marks the date on the letter, not present date or >the date the letter was received or... All I can find in The Book about {de'i} is that it is mentioned as one of the BAIs that would be useful with relative clauses, as opposed to attached to a bridi. The first reasonable interpretation I get when using it to add a place to a selbri is that it tags the date of the event. That is what {detri} means after all. So for example: la uolt uitman mrobi'o di'e li 1892 Walt Whitman died in 1892. The problem with introducing special exceptions like {ti xatra la djan de'i li 1892} to mean that 1892 is the date on ti instead of the date when the relationship holds is that it seems totally arbitrary. What does {la djan mrilu ti de'i li 1892} mean? Is 1982 the date when the event happened, or is it the date on ti? Is the {mrilu} relationship treated differently than the {xatra} relationship? So Lojban does have nouns and verbs after all? > > Can you say {le vi karce cu me la ford.}? > >Since the meaning of {me} shifted, this one has wandered areound a bit. >But >since that meaning has stablized as "is an instance of things called" it >seems that the car is OK. But are Fords really ever called by the name "Ford"? Some people do give names to their cars, but I never heard anyone name their Ford "Ford". "Can I take one of the cars? Yes, take Ford." That's not how it goes. "Take the Ford" is perfectly natural, but there "Ford" is being used as a common noun, not as a name. "Take the Ford" is just like "take the van". That it is written with a capital letter surely is irrelevant. A different question is whether {me} has the power to change a name (only brand names?) into their common noun sense, so that {me la ford} means "is a Ford" instead of "is the one named Ford". Unlike the way that {me la djan} means "is the one named John" and not "is a John". co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.