Jump to: navigation, search

User:Craig Daniel

5,605 bytes removed, 5 years ago
no edit summary
This member presides over:
 A sumti to be attached to another sumti with a [[jbocre: sumti tcita|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...'' -[[jbocre: Jay Kominek|Jay]] No, he means without the "pe", BAI + sumti applies to the whole bridi. -- [[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion]] ''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? ''--xod'' ''mi klama le zdani pe fi'e do'' is defined to mean ''mi klama le zdani poi do finti [[jbocre: ke'a|ke'a]]''. See [[jbocre: The Book|The Book]], chapter 9.10 -- Adam * 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. See [] -- [[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion]]** 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 [[jbocre: sumti tcita|sumti tcita]], as polemicised by [[User:Bob LeChevalier|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 [[jbocre: Gismu Deep Structure|Gismu Deep Structure]] Hypothesis. But that hypothesis is only that; it's not baselined, or even mentioned in the Book.) -- [[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion]] 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. --xod'' 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. -- Adam wow. thats disgusting and confusing as all hell. does anyone actually use that regularly? --[[jbocre: Jay Kominek|Jay]] People, people, why aren't you reading the [[jbocre: latest version of the|latest version of the]] [[jbocre: lessons|lessons]]? :-) *''ne fi'e'' and ''pe fi'e'' are explicitly advocated for [[jbocre: cmene|cmene]]; the standard example from the [[jbocre: Refgramm|Refgramm]] (p. 203) is (10.5), (10.6), above.*Somehow I, and maybe others, got it into our heads that [[jbocre: sumti tcita|sumti tcita]] are usually attached to other [[jbocre: sumti|sumti]] using ''pe'', not ''be'', because the [[jbocre: cmene|cmene]] example stuck, and we thought all [[jbocre: sumti|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.*[[jbocre: Robin Lee Powell|Robin Lee Powell]], like any sane [[jbocre: New Growth Lojbanist|New Growth Lojbanist]], said "Huh?" *I double checked, and the Refgramm only talked about doing this for [[jbocre: cmene|cmene]].*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 [[jbocre: 'Tweeners|'Tweeners]] (or I 'Tweener) may have gotten into, ''be'' is canonical for [[jbocre: sumti tcita|sumti tcita]] as well as normal [[jbocre: sumti|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 [[jbocre: Frank likes Betty more than Mary|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 [[jbocreBPFK Section: sumti tcita|sumti tcitaGeneral Negators]] in general? -- [[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion]] internal [[jbocre: sumti tcita|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 [[jbocre: sumti|sumti]] to follow ''pe'' boggles my mind. if i ever had a reason to attach a [[jbocre: sumti tcita|sumti tcita]] to a cmene, i wouldn't. i know where to find NOI cmavo, and i know how to use them. :) --[[jbocreCategory: Jay Kominek|JayBPFK member]]
Forum:Admin, Forum:CantDelete, Forum:CantEdit, Forum:CantPost, Forum:CantSearch, Forum:CantView, Forum:Mod, Forum:NoSigs, Translators, Users, Bureaucrats, forumadmin, staff, Administrators, translate-proofr, twitter, uploader, Widget editors

Navigation menu