From lojbab@lojban.org Mon May 28 11:36:23 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 28 May 2001 18:36:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 12044 invoked from network); 28 May 2001 18:36:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 May 2001 18:36:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-2.cais.net) (205.252.14.72) by mta3 with SMTP; 28 May 2001 18:36:21 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (125.dynamic.cais.com [207.226.56.125]) by stmpy-2.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f4SIaKE70505 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 14:36:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010528143757.00ccc3b0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 14:41:54 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Request for grammar clarifications In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 02:15 AM 05/28/2001 +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote: >la lojbab cusku di'e > >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. The written numbers, even if incorrect, are still a date related to the letter. > >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? Sounds English-colloquial to me. srana seems adequate. Though probably co'e is even better. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org