From jjllambias@hotmail.com Tue Jul 17 17:42:42 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 18 Jul 2001 00:42:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 96418 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2001 00:42:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Jul 2001 00:42:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.237) by mta3 with SMTP; 18 Jul 2001 00:42:39 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:42:39 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.50 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:42:39 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.50] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: RE: [lojban] registry of experimental cmavo Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:42:39 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jul 2001 00:42:39.0647 (UTC) FILETIME=[8C1362F0:01C10F22] From: "Jorge Llambias" la and cusku di'e >What are examples of things more than a bridi that you want >inside a du'u? For example two bridi. It can be done with ge...gi..., but it means I have to plan ahead to start with a ge. >I would want something unquantifiable that denotes >a sentence (or other abstract linguistic form). In effect, I >want something that is semantically like LI rather than like LO. LI is sintactically quantifiable, even if it doesn't mean anything. >(This is how I feel about all Lojban's quoting devices, btw.) > >I could live with a grammar change that allows "li" to have as >complement lu/zo and ideally sumti-tails, so as to allow "li ka", >"li du'u". I don't think that's very practical. Maybe what we could have is a PA that is a non-quantifier. Maybe just {tu'o}? So {li pa} = {tu'o li pa}, and we could use {tu'o du'u} for non-quantified du'u. >How do you say "Every time I say goodbye, I cry a little"? va'o ro nu mi tolrinsa kei mi milxe le ka klaku > > >8. nonveridicality indicator (a) with grammar of NA, (b) that can > > >occur in relative phrases > > > > I don't know, maybe {je'ucu'i}? > >So long as it is possible to unambiguously and uncumbersomely indicate >its scope. I don't think the last word has been said yet on how indicators work in relative clauses, but my impression is that in {noi je'ucu'i} the indicator would apply to the relative clause only. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.