Subject: Re: [lojban] Request for grammar clarifications

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 02:15:47

la lojbab cusku di'e

> >{mi jmive de'i li 1966}
>
>No, in that sense, it would translate, I lived circa 1966.

That's how I would interpret it too.

> > li 1450 bi'i li 1475 detri le nu ti se zbasu
> > "1450 to 1475 is the date this was built on"
>
>It could. But I don't think it has to. Many extended events in history
>are celebrated based on the date that they started or were completed.

That's fine. A date that is representative of the event.

>It refers to a date associated with the letter. What exactly the date has
>to do with the letter is ellipsized, associated with another place of detri
>and/or a sumti-raising therefrom.

It seems we are in agreement then. {ti xatra de'i ko'a} means
approximately {ko'a detri le nu ti xatra}: "ko'a is te date of the
letter event", the date around which the letter relationship holds.
This is probably around the date the letter is written, and probably
agrees with the date written on the letter, but {de'i} does not
strictly refer to the date written there. If you by mistake for
example date your letter 2000 instead of 2001, that does not
make {ti xatra de'i li 2000} true, it is still {ti xatra de'i
li 2001} with the wrong numbers written on it. In other words,
de'i does not refer to the written numbers but to an actual
date related to an event.

>A question is whether one really needs a predicate that
>totally within itself with no other sumti means "is a Ford".

Right. And would the same conversion apply to "is a Picasso"?
And then, would it extend to "is a Beethoven" about a symphony?
Or "is a Shakespeare" about a play? Or "is a Eurhythmics" about
a song?

co'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.