From araizen@newmail.net Sat Aug 04 18:08:05 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 5 Aug 2001 01:08:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 45082 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2001 01:08:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Aug 2001 01:08:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n17.groups.yahoo.com) (10.1.1.36) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Aug 2001 01:08:05 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: araizen@newmail.net Received: from [10.1.2.51] by mq.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Aug 2001 01:08:04 -0000 Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 01:08:01 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: remarks on no'a (was: RE: [lojban] Re: Well I guess you do learn something new every day...) Message-ID: <9ki69i+s32a@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 889 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 62.0.181.246 From: "Adam Raizen" la and cusku di'e > 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. What I wanted was a way to say things like "wash" (currently 'sezlumci') without 'sevzi'. 'vo'a zei lumci' would work if vo'a refers to the same bridi (and there are enough voC rafsi unassigned, too.) > > mi badri le nu do djuno le du'u no'a > 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}. But then "no'a" would become useless for refering to the sumti of the outer bridi, since "le (se) no'a" would all become just "zo'e". (also it wouldn't be so much fun to play with :-) mu'o mi'e adam