From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Fri Aug 03 16:39:53 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 3 Aug 2001 23:39:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 7080 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2001 23:39:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Aug 2001 23:39:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta06-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.46) by mta2 with SMTP; 3 Aug 2001 23:39:52 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.88.85]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010803233950.EVQL6330.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 00:39:50 +0100 To: Subject: remarks on no'a (was: RE: [lojban] Re: Well I guess you do learn something new every day...) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 00:38:47 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <9ked12+vfot@eGroups.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Adam: > Personally, I like the interpretation that the "vo'a" series refers to > the places of the same bridi, so that it's easy to make reflexives > with "vo'a" instead of "sevzi", which seems a bit malglico, and since > it hasn't really been defined in anything really formal yet, it might > still be that way. Reflexives are not necessarily arguments of the bridi their antecedent is an argument of. E.g. "I bought a picture of myself" would be a putative English example. > At any rate, as noted in the article, there's another way to do both > of these. "le nei", "le se nei", etc. will work for the current bridi > interpretation, and "le no'a", "le se no'a", etc. is basically > equivalent to the main bridi interpretation of the "vo'a" series. Not very basically equivalent -- not at all equivalent when there are more than two bridi levels. Anyway, I think nei/no'a (no'a xi re/ci/vo to get to higher bridi, {no'a xi ro} to get to the main bridi) are the most useful -- much more important than the vo'a series, however that series is defined. > The question is, in a sentence like "broda le nu brode le nu no'a", does > the "no'a" refer to the brode-ing or the broda-ing? I really can't > come up with a good reason why it would refer to the bridi exactly one > level up and not the main bridi. Brodeing -- because that is how {no'a} is defined. But see below for an answer along the lines of "Neither". > mi pensi le nu le nu no'a cu rinka le nu mi djuno > > Is it my thinking (likely) or being the cause (???) that makes me > know. > > mi badri le nu do djuno le du'u no'a > > Does it mean that I'm sad that you know that I'm sad, or that you know > that you know (that you know, etc.) Nonstandardly, I think it should mean "I'm sad that you know that zo'e is the x1 argument of the next outer bridi in this sentence". In other words, the interpretation of {no'a} would not be analogous to the interpretation of {go'a}. --And.