'''pe''' necessary for "sumti plus (BAI-type modifier)" (gotcha)
(Redirected from ''pe'' necessary for ''sumti'' plus (BAI-type modifier) Gotcha)Jump to navigation Jump to search
|The formatting of this page has been checked for following the guidelines of le uitki.|
A sumti to be attached to another sumti with a sumti tcita (BAI) must be attached using be or pe. Otherwise the phrase modifies the entire bridi.
- Do you have some examples of what you're referring to? I'm fairly sure the pe can only attach a sumti to a sumti...
- No, he means without the pe, BAI + sumti applies to the whole bridi.
- Since BAI opens a new place, be is preferred to pe, unless I am completely misunderstanding you, which is very possible without any examples.
|mi klama le zdani be fi'e do|
I go to the place created by you.
|mi klama le zdani pe fi'e do|
I go to the place associated in some way with...something created by you
- mi klama le zdani pe fi'e do is defined to mean mi klama le zdani poi do finti ke'a. See The Book, chapter 9.10.
- Sorry, Adam, but 9.10 does not say that. It only implies mi klama le zdani poi do finti - the ke'a is not explicitly defined, and in fact in some instances, such a definition has been rebutted
- It says: "Example 10.5 and Example 10.6 have the full semantic content of Example 10.1 and Example 10.2 respectively." (I accept that the ke'a might not necessarily be in the x2, though it's quite likely). I suppose "defined to mean" wasn't quite the best way to put it, but there isn't really another way to understand it.
- Sure; I'm just issuing the caution that such a transformation does not hold in the general case for all sumti tcita, as polemicised by Bob LeChevalier. In the particular case you mention, of course it holds. (Furthermore, it's a transformation I also believe holds in general, per the Gismu Deep Structure Hypothesis. But that hypothesis is only that; it's not baselined, or even mentioned in the Book).
- 10.1) la .apasionatas. poi se cusku la .artr. rubnstain. cu se nelci mi
- The Appassionata which is-expressed-by Artur Rubenstein is-liked-by me.
- 10.2) la .apasionatas. noi se finti la betovn. cu se nelci mi
- The Appassionata, which is-created-by Beethoven, is-liked-by me.
- 10.5) la .apasionatas pe cu'u la .artr. rubnstain. cu se nelci mi
- The Appassionata expressed-by Artur Rubenstein is-liked-by me.
- 10.6) la .apasionatas ne fi'e la betovn. cu se nelci mi
- The Appassionata, invented-by Beethoven, is-liked-by me.
- pe BAI looks very clumsy to me.
- Yes, it's an attempt to imitate natlangs' adpositions, and doesn't add anything new. The best that can be said in its defense is that its slightly shorter, and doesn't introduce a subordinate bridi.
- Somehow I, and maybe others, got it into our heads that sumti tcita are usually attached to other sumti using pe, not be, because the cmevla example stuck, and we thought all sumti must behave like this. (Or, more precisely, we thought everybody else thought like this, so we'd better do the same. :-) )
- I said as much in the lessons.
- Robin Lee Powell, like any sane New Growth Lojbanist, said "Huh?"
- I double checked, and the Refgram only talked about doing this for cmevla.
- You can do this for other sumti. (It is neither ungrammatical nor nonsensical. It does, of course, mark you of being of a certain generation...) But for other sumti, you can also do this with be, which of course makes much more sense, since it makes it completely parallel to default internal sumti.
- The Lessons are now changed. Whatever bad habits we 'Tweeners (or I 'Tweener) may have gotten into, be is canonical for sumti tcita as well as normal sumti attached to other sumti. (Proving old habits die hard, I posted a translation to the List an hour before this, using pebau.)
- Finally, I don't think you can use be instead of pe for semau and seme'a (also p. 203). But this, the original 'modal relative phrase' construction (see the original Textbook draft, in which it used to have a cmavo all of its own), has not prospered in Lojban. See Frank likes Betty more than Mary.
- So much for history. Can I ask though, are people objecting to pe as opposed to be, or to internal sumti tcita in general?
- internal sumti tcita are my bestest friends... but only when used with be. I'm ill at the thought of connecting them to a sumti with pe. the fact that the grammar even allows anything except a sumti to follow pe boggles my mind. if I ever had a reason to attach a sumti tcita to a cmene, i wouldn't. I know where to find NOI cmavo, and i know how to use them. :)